Hi Aleksander, On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:14:32PM +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote: > Until now, the barebox-specific RATP commands were all defined and > implemented in common/ratp.c. This series of patches allow ratp > commands to be defined in a similar way to console commands. I like the idea. > > The first patches (1-5) break the current RATP API, by introducing > the concept of requests, responses and indications: > * Requests sent to one endpoint are expected to be replied with > a response by the peer endpoint. > * Indications are messages sent from one endpoint to another which > are not expected to be replied. I do not see why we have to break the RATP API. I mean currently we have BB_RATP_TYPE_COMMAND and BB_RATP_TYPE_COMMAND_RETURN which you convert to .type = BB_RATP_TYPE_COMMAND, .flags = 0 | RESPONSE. I see that using flags looks somewhat nicer, but besides of that, what is your selling point to break the API? Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
