[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/8] hwconfig and some its users

[Kim Phillips]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:39:43 +0400
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov at ru.mvista.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:09:56AM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Suggestion: instead of
> > > > 
> > > > 	set hwconfig dr_usb,dr_usb_mode:peripheral,dr_usb_phy_type:ulpi
> > > > 
> > > > use:
> > > > 
> > > > 	set hwconfig dr_usb:mode=peripheral,phy_type=ulpi
> > > > 
> > > > What do you think?
> > > 
> > > Sorry for the delay. Done.
> > > New patches on the way.
> > 
> > I had made a similar comment to the original hwconfig posting that
> > appears to have been missed:
> > 
> > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-April/051845.html
> 
> I didn't miss it. ;-)

this repost didn't make that instantly clear enough to me ;-)

> > the existing syntax is flawed, e.g., what is the separator character
> > going to be when you want to configure something more than dr_usb using
> > the syntax used in this patchseries?
> 
> The separator between options is ';', between sub-options is ','.
> 
> So that would be 'dr_usb:mode=host,phy_type=ulpi; esdhc".
> 
> Which translates to
> 
> dr_usb {
> 	mode = host;
> 	phy_type = ulpi;
> };
> 
> esdhc;
> > And can we adopt a syntax that's
> > more familiar (or recognizable) to our users from the outset?
> 
> Sure, I'm open to suggestions. Originally you proposed this scheme:
> 
> set hwconfig "usb=dr; dr_usb_mode=peripheral; dr_usb_phy_type=ulpi"
> 
> But Wolfgang proposed options and sub-options to save some
> typing (notice the repetitive dr_usb), so there should be two
> assignment symbols and two symbols for separation.

if you don't want to type, things like this are possible but they
have to depend on the order given:

dr_usb.mode = host; .phy_type = ulpi; esdhc;

however when automating/scripting concatenation of them, it's useful
to not have to depend on their order:

dr_usb.mode = host; esdhc; dr_usb.phy_type = ulpi;

...so as you can see I've come up with the dot ('.') in order to
eliminate the less familiar (and therefore more misleading) colon
(':').

What do you think?

Kim

p.s., your representation above is the best, but now it's starting to
look like the frontend to a C compiler:

"dr_usb { mode = host; phy_type = ulpi; }; esdhc;"