linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 6/6] setup.c: use early_param() for early command line parsin

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] setup.c: use early_param() for early command line parsing
From: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:21:22 +0200
Cc: vagabon.xyz@gmail.com, ths@networkno.de, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, yoichi_yuasa@tripeaks.co.jp
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=rX6ZQb8ycR9hqXQhjundRoMv5hDRCGjADhru5rhB8aYlvdD3LpYInf5wsSVpamoC2l80DxCPw9D5KUAaDDOVO9e3Jhr9cab0+IlKc5h1tfIiQ7DQjeB1q1jMTHdRgQmC8RFX571V+NntXmvI0d4/GpNwW8OmovpcJhqQnTaDOzQ=
In-reply-to: <20060809.010526.18607898.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1155041313139-git-send-email-vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> <20060808125604.GI29989@networkno.de> <44D898FE.7080006@innova-card.com> <20060809.010526.18607898.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Reply-to: Franck <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614)
Hi Atsushi,

Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:00:30 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>>> NOTE ! This patch also changes the initrd semantic. Old code
>>>> was expecting "rd_start=xxx rd_size=xxx" which uses two
>>>> parameters. Now the code expects "initrd=xxx@yyy" which is
>>>> really simpler to parse and to use. No default config files
>>>> use these parameters anyways but not sure for bootloader's
>>>> users...
>>> This code is there precisely because most mips bootloaders use
>>> rd_start/rd_size.
>> OK, I guess we have to stick with this weird semantic...
> 
> Maybe you can add something like "initrdmem=xxx@yyy", keeping
> "rd_start" and "rd_size" for the backward compatibility.  Just a
> thought.
> 

Well that what I was planning when writing this patch but I didn't.
I think that we will end up with two different semantics and the
old one never replaced by the new one... Except if we mark them as
deprecated by showing a warning at boot. What do you think ?

                Franck

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>