On 7/5/21 11:29 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Sean,
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 00:16, Sean Anderson <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Several functions have different names than they do in TCL. To make things
easier for those familiar with TCL, rename them to their TCL equivalents.
At the moment, this is only done for functions not used by LIL_FULL. Some
functions need more substantive work to conform them to TCL. For example,
in TCL, there is a `string` function with a subcommand of `compare`, which
is the same as the top-level function `compare`. Several functions also
have no TCL equivalent. Do we need these?
TODO: do this for all functions
Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean...@gmail.com>
---
common/cli_lil.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Is your intent to create a fork of this in U-Boot?
Yes. I believe some of the major additions I have made (especially "[RFC
PATCH 21/28] cli: lil: Add a distinct parsing step") would not be
accepted by upstream.
Could we not update things upstream, at least as an option, to avoid
carrying these patches?
For some of the smaller patches, that may be possible. However, I am not
a fan of the major amount of ifdefs that Hush has. For something as core
as a shell, I think we should be free to make changes as we see fit
without worrying about how it will affect a hypothetical backport.
For this patch in particular, I believe upstream would no accept it
because it would break backwards compatibility for existing LIL users.
However, I view compatibility with TCL as a whole more valuble than
compatibility with LIL.
--Sean
