On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:21:52AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> Convert barebox_update_handler_exists() to treat struct bbu_data with
> both "handler_name" and "devicefile" set to NULL as a specifier for
> default update handler in order to support such use-case for
> "barebox_update" and fix a recent regression.
>
> This change shouldn't affect another user of
> barebox_update_handler_exists(), cb_flash() in
> drivers/usb/gadget/f_fastboot.c, since that function explicitly
> specifies "devicefile".
>
> Fixes 0ac96ab6e ("bbu: command: Make sure specified update handler exists")
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> common/bbu.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/common/bbu.c b/common/bbu.c
> index 3974bf672..ffe5e15a2 100644
> --- a/common/bbu.c
> +++ b/common/bbu.c
> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ bool barebox_update_handler_exists(struct bbu_data *data)
> if (handler)
> return true;
>
> - if (!data->handler_name)
> + if (!data->handler_name && data->devicefile)
> return false;
>
> return bbu_find_handler(data->handler_name) != NULL;
This function is confusing. We should split this up into two functions:
barebox_update_handler_exists_for_name() and
barebox_update_handler_exists_for_devpath() *). Fastboot would only need
the latter and the barebox_update command would use both, possibly
barking when both a name and a device is given (as otherwise we would
have to check for name <-> devpath conflicts)
Sascha
*) I'm open for better names ;)
--
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
