Re: [U-Boot] bootm state -- stateful vs stateless

Kumar Gala wrote:

One of the things that wasn't clear to me is if we are ok with maintaining state between 'bootm' subcommand inside u-boot or if we really require passing all state via arguments and env.

While I know it would be nice if the subcommands were stateless I dont think this is practical.

state we'd have to keep track of:

• arguments to the "top level" bootm command
• type of arguments (fit vs plain addresses)
• Image information, for FIT we get something like:

[snip of killer state information]

• entry point of OS image
• region tracking of memory regions used by previous subcommands (OS

image, bd_t, fdt, initrd, etc.)

This seems like a lot of state to pass around in the env and via arguments to commands. My vote is for stateful sub_commands.

• k

Useful info and analysis. I agree, it looks like we will need to be stateful.

Best regards, gvb