Dear Josh Wu,
In message 539A70FF.4080003@atmel.com you wrote:
Don;t we also support plain "ifname dev", i. e. without partition specification?
The problem is we only support "ifname dev" on command line mode or the filesystem call which calls get_device_and_partition().
For environment save/load and SPL load on FAT, which use fat_register_device() instead of calling get_device_and_partition(), we need specify the partition number. It DOESN'T support "ifname dev" without partition number.
OK. so we have indentified the problem. It seems we should fix that?
I think, we should implemnt consistent behaviour here.
I agree. I will read the get_device_and_partition() code to understand it.
The commit message of the patch you referred to has a nice description of how it is supposed to work.
After the discussing I get a further think of this problem. Let me summary here:
The problem I met is FAT env save/load and FAT spl load use fat_register_device() instead of get_device_and_partition(). So that means I must specify a partition number.
I think for usually user case, we don't want to specify the partition number. that means: 1. if has partition table, please use partition #1.
This is different from the non-SPL case then, which uses the first bootable partition instead, which may or may bnot be # 1.
if we agree with above, then the solution should be implement a way to support the case we don't specify a partition number. 1. use get_device_and_partition(). 2. add a unspecify partition number support in fat_register_device()
I think #1 is the best way be cause we don't have to implement same things in two place. But I am doubt that the FAT spl can use it. I'll check this.
Using the same code is also a good way to make sure the behaviour is the same :-)
What do think of that?
Sounds good to me.
Please make this an "int" type, and use 0 and 1.
Is there any special concern for that? like cause machine compatiable issue?
Boolean values in C are 1 and 0. Hiding these under other names (like "true" and "false") doesn't buy anything.
Okay. I just think use bool will be more readable. That also can make people less use an integer number, which in some case it's hard to understand it.
None of the related code uses ant bool types so far, so please do not introduce it now.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk