On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Andy Fleming, > > In message <BANLkTimmtV9L9P75A-PLez5rhVy4hYg=g...@mail.gmail.com> you wrote: >> >> > From now on, follow the general rule "mmc dev [dev]" to change the >> > mmc command applied device, like ide and usb... > ... >> I'd really prefer if there were still the option to specify the device >> in the read/write commands. I appreciate the convenience of not having >> to specify it every time, but I feel that by doing things this way, we >> create an artificial separation between a transaction, and the target >> of the transaction. It tends to encourage a notion that a transaction >> can only be done to the global-current device, which is fine for >> command-line interfaces, but can result in broken programming >> interfaces > > PLease see the preceeding thread for the reasons for this interface > (make it the same as what we have with USB, IDE, etc.). > > Yes, it is not a nice one. We really want a beter device model.
I'm fine with supporting a consistent interface, but I think what I'm suggesting doesn't break that. After all, if we follow my suggestion, one can quite happily pretend that the command line interface requires: mmc dev x:y mmc read <addr> <blk> <cnt> It's just that the other way would also be possible. I re-read the thread where this was discussed, and while I definitely agree that the originally proposed solution was highly error-prone, I think *allowing* users to do this is fine: mmc read <dev>:<part> <addr> <blk> <cnt> Is there a reason that this wouldn't work with the current model? Andy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot