[U-Boot] [PATCH V2 4/4] cmd_part: add partition-related command

[Stephen Warren]

On 09/05/2012 05:58 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:51:58PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 09/05/2012 05:03 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> This implements the following:
>>>
>>> part uuid mmc 0:1
>>>   -> print partition UUID
>>> part uuid mmc 0:1 uuid
>>>   -> set environment variable to partition UUID
>>
>> What's the reason to not always both print out and set the uuid env var?
>>
>> Perhaps the env name should be partuuid or part_uuid as you could have
>> uuid's for other purposes?
>>
>>>
>>> This can be useful when writing a bootcmd which searches all known
>>> devices for something bootable, and then wants the kernel to use the
>>> same partition as the root device, e.g.:
>>>
>>> part uuid ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} uuid
>>> setenv bootargs root=PARTUUID=${uuid} ...
>>>
>>> It is expected that further part sub-commands will be added later, e.g.
>>> to find which partition on a disk is marked bootable, to write new
>>> partition tables to disk, etc.
>>
>> A list command would be useful and would be better located here than
>> under scsi or other interface commands. Perhaps instead of printing a
>> single part uuid, you should make a list command that prints all
>> partitions and their UUIDs. That would address my first question.
> 
> Sounds like a good idea to me as well.
> 
> [snip]
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>> v2: validate that CONFIG_PARTITION_UUID is defined when CONFIG_CMD_PART is
>>>
>>> Note: If Rob Herring's proposed patch "disk/part: introduce
>>> get_device_and_partition" is applied, the body of do_partuuid() should
>>> be reworked to use Rob's new function get_device_and_partition().
> 
> I think the best idea here would be to make the next version just depend
> on Rob's series.

Tom,

Rob's series depends on Wolfgang(?)'s u-boot/ext4 branch at present. I'm
not sure what the status of that branch is right now - is it something
that's ready to be submitted, or is more work there needed, so the
branch won't be pulled into u-boot/master in the near future? I'm mainly
asking so Rob and I know if Rob's patches should be rebased first onto
something else, before I rebase my patches on his.

Thanks.