On 08/04/2011 12:40 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
What if there are multiple such commands? You'd end up with "nand hwfunc
Then we would have a (as hwfunc is a nand subcommand) hwfunc subcommand(s) ...
The question was rhetorical, as the next sentence indicates -- unless you had a different answer, of course.
foo<args>", which is getting a bit unwieldy. Having only one might
Why?
The "hwfunc" doesn't really tell the user anything, it's an internal implementation detail of where in the code the command is implemented. It's verbosity without benefit.
(I don;t know, if we get really more then one hwfunc...)
You later say a plain "nand hwfunc" would print a help message, so that plus one real command makes two...
, but if we define all over the code some (board, soc, arch,...) specific nand commands, we lose track ... and with the "nand hwfunc" we have one place where we have to look ...
More like one thing to grep for, and you'll still need to limit the files grepped so you don't get irrelevant results from other boards or controllers. Why not just search those files for U_BOOT_CMD?
actually be worse: what does a plain "nand hwfunc" do?
A plain "nand hwfunc" should print the help message (if we have more subcommands under "nand hwfunc"), if we have only one, it returns as usual in uboot, actual state ...
"actual state" of what? We haven't gotten to the point of actually defining a command yet.
nand hwfunc [rbl/uboot] switch between rbl/uboot nand read/write functions
cam_enc_4xx> nand hwfunc uboot
Again, I think "nand hwfunc" conveys little information about what it's actually going to do, versus something like:
=> nandrbl off
At least "nand hwfunc type" or "nand hwfunc rbl" would be more informative, but I question the benefit that the verbosity buys us.
Why do you need alternative implementations of read/write functions, BTW?
cam_enc_4xx>
What if there are multiple commands, but which belong in different places (e.g. one defined by the board, one defined by the controller driver)?
Maybe something like this?
nand hwfunc arch ... nand hwfunc board ... nand hwfunc ctrl ... nand hwfunc soc ... [...]
each hwfunc subcommand added through an define ...
So now it's "nand hwfunc ctrl type rbl"? Just to avoid grepping for U_BOOT_CMD?
Or by "one place to look" are you talking about as a user in the help output? If you insist on the command appearing as a proper "nand" subcommand, how about dropping "hwfunc" and letting other pieces of code register on a chain of handlers? Anything that isn't recognized gets passed on to the next link in the chain.
-Scott