On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 06:56:33PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 18:47, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 06:42:19PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 15:38, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 05:09:12PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Rather than passing it all the command-line args, pass in the pieces that it needs. These are the image address, the ramdisk address/name and the FDT address/name.
Ultimately this will allow usage of this function without being called from the command line.
OK, so this goal is good.
[snip]
return bootm_find_images(img_addr, argc > 1 ? argv[1] : NULL,argc > 2 ? argv[2] : NULL, 0, 0);That we repeat this much harder to read test/if/else three times now is less good. Can we find some way to hide the complexity here in the case where it's coming from a command and so we have argc/argv[] ?
I can't really think of one. Ultimately this is coming from the fact that the booti and bootz commands directly call bootm_find_images(). I haven't got far enough to know whether that will still be true in the end, but I hope not.
IMO the correct place for the logic above is in the command-processing code, where it decides which arg means what.
I could imagine something like:
static const char *cmd_get_arg(int argc, char *const argv[], int argnum) { return argc > argnum ? argv[argnum] : NULL; }
but I'm not sure that is an improvement.
I was thinking about this more after I sent this. And I think we might indeed want an inline / macro to handle this case more generally as I suspect we'll have similar cases where we need argN-or-NULL as we refactor other areas of code to split "here is the command" from "here is the library functionality" of it. Then we'll have: ulong foo = cmd_arg_one(argc, argv); ulong bar = cmd_arg_two(argc, argv);
librarycall(foo, bar, ...);
OK I can try something. But note that the one, two terminology becomes confusing. Is the first argument zero or one? Also we often drop an argument in a subcommand to allow things to start from 0 again.
It might be better to use first and second, instead?
Yes, please come up with a better naming scheme, I'm terrible about stuff like that.