[U-Boot] [PATCH] fw_env.h: added a few missing defines

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/12/1 Andreas Bießmann <andreas.devel at googlemail.com>

> Dear Frans Meulenbroeks,
>
> Am 01.12.2011 14:30, schrieb Frans Meulenbroeks:
> > The README file lists 4 defined that were not actually present in the .h
> > file but that were needed to get things working with settings compiled
> in.
> > They are
> > Added these to the .h file
> > (the values above are the ones from the README file)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>
>
> I tend to NAK this.
>
> > ---
> >  tools/env/fw_env.h |    4 ++++
> >  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/env/fw_env.h b/tools/env/fw_env.h
> > index 9258c79..2dcb373 100644
> > --- a/tools/env/fw_env.h
> > +++ b/tools/env/fw_env.h
> > @@ -34,8 +34,12 @@
> >  #define DEVICE2_NAME      "/dev/mtd2"
> >  #define DEVICE1_OFFSET    0x0000
> >  #define ENV1_SIZE         0x4000
> > +#define DEVICE1_ESIZE     0x4000
> > +#define DEVICE1_ENVSECTORS     2
>
> This change will overwrite the settings done by ENV1_SIZE ... and none
> of the settings match my boards needs ;)
>
> I would appreciate you test my patch
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/106972/focus=112948
> or http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/120372/
>
> I guess you could fulfil your requirements with that patch too.
>
> best regards
>

Hi Andreas, all

I have no particular preference to your patch, and I am not 100% sure about
the overwriting of ENV1_ESIZE.
Actually my understanding is that ENV1_SIZE specifies the size of the
environment and DEVICE1_ESIZE is the size of a sector (but I may be wrong
here)

What I noticed was that there is a difference with what is specified in the
tools/env/README file and what is in tools/env/fw_env.h

For my project I wanted to have the settings into the program and avoid the
file in /etc, hence I followed the README and bumped into the fact that
these two were missing. I've added them to make them compliant with the
README.

For my board of course the values were not correct either, so I patched
these locally, then tested my work and found it to work.
As it stands this could probably be replaced with your patch; can't test
that now as we are in the usual end-of-year stress to complete some
projects.  Yet an alternate solution could be to update the README file.

Best regards, Frans

PS (please keep me cc-ed, I've unsubscribed from the list a while ago due
to information overload because of being on too many lists)
(or talk to me on irc: eFfeM)