[PATCH v6 4/7] env: Allow U-Boot scripts to be placed in a .env file
sjg at chromium.org
Mon Oct 18 20:12:21 CEST 2021
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 05:59, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Simon,
> In message <CAPnjgZ106dBqzJdVYpufp4mztf3_eFoX9isSm=W_c5uDoFJVGA at mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > > I really think your fixed filename proposal does not work well in
> > > reality. The file name should be Kconfig configurable. See 
> > > for details.
> > >
> > >  https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2021-October/462668.html
> > Yes I saw that but I forgot to look at it. I think it makes sense - we
> > do that with devicetree, for example.
> > Is that the only thing holding you back?
> Basically yes - the only other concerns I have is about this +=
> construct which makes the '+' character an illegal character for
> environment variable names, but only when used at the end of the
> variable. This is anything but nice or consistent. Iwonder what
> happens with notations like these:
> foo+=bar -> "bar" gets appended to current value of "foo"
> But what for:
> foo+ = bar
Can we just ban + ?
In the above, foo\+ gives an unknown escape sequence from the C
preprocessor, then the whole line is ignored by the script
foo+ = bar produes a variable called "foo+ " in the environment with
the value " bar" so you probably don't want that.
> And please see also my comments about changing the autostart
> functionality for the user.
Yes I saw that and I think it is OK to change it. What do you think?
> > I haven't seen any positive comments to this series yet...
> Maybe many long-term users of U-Boot don't see the current situation
> as such a big problem? I have no idea.
My original motivation was the complexity of getting the env you want
My current motivation is to complete the CONFIG migration, now in its 8th year.
More information about the U-Boot