Hello,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 10:34:51PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > + ret = mci_send_ext_csd(mci, ext_csd);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + printf("Failure to read EXT_CSD register\n");
> > + free(ext_csd);
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ext_csd;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* enh_area -m [-c] /dev/mmcX */
>
> -m is not implemented
>
> > +static int do_mmc_enh_area(int argc, char *argv[])
> > +{
> > + const char *devpath;
> > + struct mci *mci;
> > + u8 *ext_csd;
> > + int set_completed = 0;
> > + int opt;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + while ((opt = getopt(argc, argv, "c")) > 0) {
> > + switch (opt) {
> > + case 'c':
> > + set_completed = 1;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * -m is currently mandatory to allow more flexible enhanced area
> > + * specifications in the future.
> > + */
>
> -m?
-m was an intermediate step. You suggested to use -m instead of
"setmax", but while implementing I noticed that with options there is no
need for a keyword or option.
Can you please squash this into my patch?:
diff --git a/commands/mmc.c b/commands/mmc.c
index b51522fce2a6..c696e7b8817b 100644
--- a/commands/mmc.c
+++ b/commands/mmc.c
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static u8 *mci_get_ext_csd(struct mci *mci)
return ext_csd;
}
-/* enh_area -m [-c] /dev/mmcX */
+/* enh_area [-c] /dev/mmcX */
static int do_mmc_enh_area(int argc, char *argv[])
{
const char *devpath;
@@ -98,10 +98,6 @@ static int do_mmc_enh_area(int argc, char *argv[])
}
}
- /*
- * -m is currently mandatory to allow more flexible enhanced area
- * specifications in the future.
- */
if (argc - optind != 1) {
printf("Usage: mmc enh_area [-c] /dev/mmcX\n");
return COMMAND_ERROR_USAGE;
or should I resend?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
