[U-Boot] [PATCH RESEND] Introduced btrfs file-system with btrload command

[Adnan Ali]

On 28/03/13 17:04, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:04:45PM +0000, Adnan Ali wrote:
>
>> Introduces btrfs file-system to read file from
>> volume/sub-volumes with btrload command. This
>> implementation has read-only support.
>> This btrfs implementation is based on syslinux btrfs
>> code, commit 269ebc845ebc8b46ef4b0be7fa0005c7fdb95b8d.
>>
>> v9:     patch problem reworked.
>> v8:     patch problem reworked.
>> v5:     merged with master.
>> v4:     btrls command added.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Adnan Ali <adnan.ali at codethink.co.uk>
> First, this should be v10 not "RESEND".  And that means the next version
> should be v11.
      ok
>
> One of the rules of adding code to U-Boot is we don't add "dead" code
> that's not built somewhere.  So you should be adding CONFIG_CMD_BTR
> somewhere like to say include/configs/sandbox.h (which has ext4/fat
> support, but can't yet use them).
      You mean adding to one of the configs, I used include/configs/mx53loco
   the reason i didn't added config file to patch as some one told not to
add config file as part of port. Is that what you mean.
>
> Another rule is no adding code with compiler warning.  This code has
> _a_lot_ of warnings.  This is due in part to how you've ported the
> syslinux generic inode/fs_info structure over to U-Boot (as we need to
> spend some time here cleaning up our code, but I'm not asking you to do
> that).  I started digging into fixing these warnings but then found your
     Thanks if you are doing it.
> changes to btrfs_read_super_block() where you removed the syslinux check
> over all possible superblock areas.  Why are we deviating here?  Are
> there other deviations from syslinux in the driver itself?  Thanks.
>
      The first super is the real one the rest of them are just mirrors
of the first .  If you want it to be added i can do it.