> On Thu, 2024-10-24 at 11:04 +0200, Bean Huo wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-10-24 at 08:00 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > > > - { do_ffu, -2,
> > > > - "ffu", "<image name> <device> [chunk-bytes]\n"
> > > > + { do_ffu1, -2,
> > > > + "ffu1", "<image name> <device> [chunk-bytes]\n"
> > > Ah, but didn't we establish that the current API should be retained
> > > to act as the default mode?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Avri
> >
> > Avri,
> >
> > Corret, the reason for updating the default FFU mode name from 'ffu'
> > to
> > 'ffu1' is to avoid the error: 'ERROR: in command 'ffu', 'ffu' is
> > ambiguous' when using 'mmc ffu'. Without this change, the system will
> > encounter ambiguity.
> >
> >
> > I am considering a naming scheme like opt_ffu1 and opt_ffu2, that
> > works well for maintaining consistency and keeping the names concise.
> >
> > ffu2 could become opt_ffu1 (indicating the first optimized or
> > alternate FFU mode).
> >
> > ffu3 could become opt_ffu2.
> > ffu4 could become opt_ffu3.
> > ffu5 could become opt_ffu4.
> >
> > then keep default ffu name as it is used to be.
> >
> > how do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Bean
>
> Avri,
>
> how do you think about above my proposal of changing ffux to opt_ffux?
I don't really have a strong opinion about that.
As long as the current mode stay the same.
Thanks,
Avri
>
> Kind regards,
> Bean
