Dear Josh Wu, In message <539a70ff.4080...@atmel.com> you wrote: > > > Don;t we also support plain "ifname dev", i. e. without partition > > specification? > > The problem is we only support "ifname dev" on command line mode or the > filesystem call which calls get_device_and_partition(). > > For environment save/load and SPL load on FAT, which use > fat_register_device() instead of calling get_device_and_partition(), > we need specify the partition number. It DOESN'T support "ifname dev" > without partition number.
OK. so we have indentified the problem. It seems we should fix that? > > I think, we should implemnt consistent behaviour here. > > I agree. I will read the get_device_and_partition() code to understand it. The commit message of the patch you referred to has a nice description of how it is supposed to work. > After the discussing I get a further think of this problem. Let me > summary here: > > The problem I met is FAT env save/load and FAT spl load use > fat_register_device() instead of get_device_and_partition(). > So that means I must specify a partition number. > > I think for usually user case, we don't want to specify the partition > number. that means: > 1. if has partition table, please use partition #1. This is different from the non-SPL case then, which uses the first bootable partition instead, which may or may bnot be # 1. > if we agree with above, then the solution should be implement a way to > support the case we don't specify a partition number. > 1. use get_device_and_partition(). > 2. add a unspecify partition number support in fat_register_device() > > I think #1 is the best way be cause we don't have to implement same > things in two place. But I am doubt that the FAT spl can use it. I'll > check this. Using the same code is also a good way to make sure the behaviour is the same :-) > What do think of that? Sounds good to me. > >>> Please make this an "int" type, and use 0 and 1. > >> Is there any special concern for that? like cause machine compatiable > >> issue? > > Boolean values in C are 1 and 0. Hiding these under other names (like > > "true" and "false") doesn't buy anything. > > Okay. I just think use bool will be more readable. That also can make > people less use an integer number, which in some case it's hard to > understand it. None of the related code uses ant bool types so far, so please do not introduce it now. Thanks. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de There is is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home. -- Ken Olsen (President of Digital Equipment Corporation), Convention of the World Future Society, in Boston, 1977 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot