Hi Wolfgang, On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > On 25/10/11 18:46, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Simon Glass, >> >> In message <1319514744-18697-1-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you wrote: >>> We should aim for a single point of entry to the commands, whichever >>> parser is used. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>> --- >>> common/command.c | 10 ++++++++++ >>> common/hush.c | 9 +++------ >>> common/main.c | 3 +-- >>> include/command.h | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/common/command.c b/common/command.c >>> index c5cecd3..acc1c15 100644 >>> --- a/common/command.c >>> +++ b/common/command.c >>> @@ -487,3 +487,13 @@ void fixup_cmdtable(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int size) >>> } >>> } >>> #endif >>> + >>> +int cmd_call(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]) >>> +{ >>> + int result; >>> + >>> + result = (cmdtp->cmd)(cmdtp, flag, argc, argv); >>> + if (result) >>> + debug("Command failed, result=%d", result); >>> + return result; >>> +} >> >> What exactly is the purpose of this additional function? Except for >> the debug() it provides only overhead and no benefit. > > It provides a single location to issue an XOFF immediately prior to running > a (potentially long running) command > >> I don't think I want to have that. > > Well it does make things cleaner if we do end up implementing software flow > control
What Graeme said :-) It could probably be done in an inline fashion though to avoid overhead. Regards, Simon > > Regards, > > Graeme > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot