Hi.
Le mardi 8 novembre 2022, 21:15:12 CET Simon Glass a écrit :
Hi,
On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 08:21, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 08:28:42AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Patrick,
On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 05:32, Patrick DELAUNAY
patrick.delaunay@foss.st.com wrote:
Hi,
On 11/1/22 20:20, Francis Laniel wrote:
For the moment, the menu contains only entry: HUSH_OLD_PARSER which is the default. The goal is to prepare the field to add a new hush parser which guarantees actual behavior is still correct.
Signed-off-by: Francis Laniel francis.laniel@amarulasolutions.com
cmd/Kconfig | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ common/Makefile | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/cmd/Kconfig b/cmd/Kconfig index 3f6bc70d43..c15d7c51f7 100644 --- a/cmd/Kconfig +++ b/cmd/Kconfig @@ -23,6 +23,27 @@ config HUSH_PARSER
If disabled, you get the old, much simpler behaviour with a somewhat smaller memory footprint.+menu "Hush flavor to use"
depends on HUSH_PARSERconfig HUSH_OLD_PARSERbool "Use hush old parser"default yhelpThis option enables the old flavor of hush based onhush Busybox from + 2005.
It is actually the default U-Boot shell when decidedto use hush as shell. +
config HUSH_2021_PARSERbool "Use hush 2021 parser"helpThis option enables the new flavor of hush based onhush Busybox from + 2021.
For the moment, it is highly experimental and shouldbe used at own risks. +endmenu
I think "choice" can be made sense here
=> only one version is used
choice
prompt "Hush flavor to use" default HUSH_OLD_PARSER depends on HUSH_PARSERconfig HUSH_OLD_PARSER
bool "Use hush old parser"config HUSH_2021_PARSER
bool "Use hush 2021 parser"
endchoice
We need to be able to build both and then select the correct one at runtime, at least for sandbox. Otherwise we would need yet another sandbox build. So I think what we have here makes sense.
I think choice is fine, as that's for testing. Once we're ready to merge this we'll not keep both around for long.
Oh that's good. I heard people worrying about compatibility and size of the new shell, so thought we might need both.
Thank all of you for your feedback!
I think being able to change the shell at run time with "parser set" could also be useful for people to test if they are worried their board will not work with the new one. So, they can test a feature with the old shell, change at runtime to the new one and see if everything is correct.
Regards, Simon
Best regards.