Re: [OSS-Tools] [PATCH dt-utils] barebox-mark-successful-boot: adopt naming from barebox

[Christoph Fritz <chf.fritz@googlemail.com>]

On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 13:07 +0100, Roland Hieber wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:50:19PM +0100, Roland Hieber wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:25:11PM +0100, Enrico Joerns wrote:
> > > On 11/16/19 1:44 PM, Christoph Fritz wrote:
> > > > This patch is adopting current barebox default naming scheme.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Fritz <chf.fritz@googlemail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh | 4 ++--
> > > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh b/scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh
> > > > index 3120f57..9286a63 100644
> > > > --- a/scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh
> > > > +++ b/scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh
> > > > @@ -3,12 +3,12 @@
> > > >   DEFAULT_REMAINING_ATTEMPTS=3
> > > >   DEFAULT_PRIORITY=20
> > > > -system=$(sed /proc/cmdline -ne "s/\(^\|.* \)bootstate.active=\([^ ]*\).*/\2/p")
> > > > +system=$(sed /proc/cmdline -ne "s/\(^\|.* \)bootchooser.active=\([^ ]*\).*/\2/p")
> > > >   if [ -z "${system}" ]; then
> > > >   	echo "unable to detect system partition" >&2
> > > >   	exit 1
> > > >   fi
> > > > -barebox-state -n /state \
> > > > +barebox-state -n state \
> > > >   	-s "bootstate.${system}.remaining_attempts=${DEFAULT_REMAINING_ATTEMPTS}" \
> > > >   	-s "bootstate.${system}.priority=${DEFAULT_PRIORITY}"
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your patch, I didn't even remember that we have a script for this ;)
> > > 
> > > For me, the changes look reasonable. Any concerns? Roland?
> > 
> > Hmm. My barebox 2019.06.0 here still passes the parameter as
> > "bootstate.active=system0", and I cannot find any commit in barebox
> > since then that changes this. Can you point me to a commit?
> 
> Sorry, that was a barebox version which was heavily patched for
> backwards compatibility with old kernels and userlands :-/ 
> 
> > In any case, we should be compatible to old barebox versions, so both
> > versions of the parameter name should be accepted.
> 
> However this is still the best option I think.

So in the script you want to check the return value of barebox-state and
call it with the old parameters to be backward compatible?

bye
 -- Christoph


_______________________________________________
OSS-Tools mailing list
OSS-Tools@pengutronix.de