[U-Boot] [PATCH] ti_armv7_common: enable setexpr
This allows us to do basic math in hush shell. For example: U-Boot# r1=10 U-Boot# r2=20 U-Boot# setexpr.l r3 $r1 + $r2 U-Boot# echo $r3 30
Reported-by: Vitaly Andrianov vitalya@ti.com Suggested-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com --- include/configs/ti_armv7_common.h | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/include/configs/ti_armv7_common.h b/include/configs/ti_armv7_common.h index 5a4fd2d5552f..d9cd90002ca7 100644 --- a/include/configs/ti_armv7_common.h +++ b/include/configs/ti_armv7_common.h @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ #define CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_LEN (16 << 20) #endif #define CONFIG_SYS_HUSH_PARSER +#define CONFIG_CMD_SETEXPR #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT "U-Boot# " #define CONFIG_SYS_CONSOLE_INFO_QUIET #define CONFIG_BAUDRATE 115200
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:48:27AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
This allows us to do basic math in hush shell. For example: U-Boot# r1=10 U-Boot# r2=20 U-Boot# setexpr.l r3 $r1 + $r2 U-Boot# echo $r3 30
Reported-by: Vitaly Andrianov vitalya@ti.com Suggested-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com
This needs to be done in the configs/ files now instead as we have CMD_EXPR there. In fact I'm not sure right now which would win, the define here or the disable currently in the config files :)
On 08/06/2015 10:04 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:48:27AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
This allows us to do basic math in hush shell. For example: U-Boot# r1=10 U-Boot# r2=20 U-Boot# setexpr.l r3 $r1 + $r2 U-Boot# echo $r3 30
Reported-by: Vitaly Andrianov vitalya@ti.com Suggested-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com
This needs to be done in the configs/ files now instead as we have CMD_EXPR there. In fact I'm not sure right now which would win, the define here or the disable currently in the config files :)
yeah, I do many defconfigs define CONFIG_CMD_SETEXPR..
We dont have a common config file there(similar to ti_armv7_common) .. we'd have to introduce this for every board config then... is'nt that in-efficient?
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:08:59AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 08/06/2015 10:04 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:48:27AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
This allows us to do basic math in hush shell. For example: U-Boot# r1=10 U-Boot# r2=20 U-Boot# setexpr.l r3 $r1 + $r2 U-Boot# echo $r3 30
Reported-by: Vitaly Andrianov vitalya@ti.com Suggested-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com
This needs to be done in the configs/ files now instead as we have CMD_EXPR there. In fact I'm not sure right now which would win, the define here or the disable currently in the config files :)
yeah, I do many defconfigs define CONFIG_CMD_SETEXPR..
We dont have a common config file there(similar to ti_armv7_common) .. we'd have to introduce this for every board config then... is'nt that in-efficient?
Much like the kernel we try and pick sensible defaults. In this case you'd be removing a line from the defconfig files.
But you're not the first to suggest that something better could be done here and maybe further down the line we'll play with the upstream tools for merging defconfig snippets so that we could have some common ones pulled together.
On 08/06/2015 11:31 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:08:59AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 08/06/2015 10:04 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:48:27AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
This allows us to do basic math in hush shell. For example: U-Boot# r1=10 U-Boot# r2=20 U-Boot# setexpr.l r3 $r1 + $r2 U-Boot# echo $r3 30
Reported-by: Vitaly Andrianov vitalya@ti.com Suggested-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com
This needs to be done in the configs/ files now instead as we have CMD_EXPR there. In fact I'm not sure right now which would win, the define here or the disable currently in the config files :)
yeah, I do many defconfigs define CONFIG_CMD_SETEXPR..
We dont have a common config file there(similar to ti_armv7_common) .. we'd have to introduce this for every board config then... is'nt that in-efficient?
Much like the kernel we try and pick sensible defaults. In this case you'd be removing a line from the defconfig files.
But you're not the first to suggest that something better could be done here and maybe further down the line we'll play with the upstream tools for merging defconfig snippets so that we could have some common ones pulled together.
I just curious whether setexpr.l will work with 64bit variable, which required to represent initrd address with LPAE enabled. Does the setexpr have uint_64_t version?
participants (3)
-
Nishanth Menon -
Tom Rini -
Vitaly Andrianov