On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 05:06:55PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:52 PM Sascha Hauer <s.ha...@pengutronix.de> wrote: > > > @@ -137,7 +165,8 @@ static int imx_bbu_internal_v1_update(struct > > > bbu_handler *handler, struct bbu_da > > > container_of(handler, struct imx_internal_bbu_handler, > > > handler); > > > int ret; > > > > > > - ret = imx_bbu_check_prereq(data->devicefile, data); > > > + ret = imx_bbu_check_prereq(imx_handler, data->devicefile, data, > > > + filetype_unknown); > > > > Why filetype_unknown here? in the v2 version we have > > filetype_imx_image_v2. I would expect filetype_imx_image_v1 here. > > > > Purely because original code didn't do any type checking of "inner" > image, so I specified filetype_unknown and and added special handling > for it to preserve the status quo. It sounds like you think that it > would be better to change the original behavior such that there _is_ > an "inner" image type check for v1 one header. That would be my > preference as well, since that'll allow me to get rid of special > filetype_unknown case, so that's what I'll do in v2.
Not sure why the v1 code is different here, it probably just grew like that and I never noticed. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
