On Aug 7, 2008, at 9:37 PM, Jerry Van Baren wrote: > Kumar Gala wrote: >> One of the things that wasn't clear to me is if we are ok with >> maintaining state between 'bootm' subcommand inside u-boot or if we >> really require passing all state via arguments and env. >> While I know it would be nice if the subcommands were stateless I >> dont think this is practical. >> state we'd have to keep track of: >> * arguments to the "top level" bootm command >> * type of arguments (fit vs plain addresses) >> * Image information, for FIT we get something like: > > [snip of killer state information] > >> * entry point of OS image >> * region tracking of memory regions used by previous subcommands >> (OS image, bd_t, fdt, initrd, etc.) >> This seems like a lot of state to pass around in the env and via >> arguments to commands. My vote is for stateful sub_commands. >> - k > > Useful info and analysis. I agree, it looks like we will need to be > stateful.
Wolfgang do you agree? - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot