On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:42:40AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> -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?
squashed into the patch, no need to resend. Thanks,
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
