Hi Ahmad,
On Monday, 14 June 2021 6:51:27 PM AEST Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14.06.21 00:26, Marc Reilly wrote:
> > A dryrun boot will now run the boot script and a then a
> > dryrun of the bootm.
>
> This would change behavior for boot scripts that directly boot
> instead of setting up variables for bootm to use, but I think
> > that's acceptable,
To be honest I didn't consider this .. although I'm not sure what the use case
for this command would be for that scenario.
Ideally then, there could be two parameters for 'dryrun', one to stop at
running the script, and one to go through to the call to bootm.
This could also be done using a combination of the 'verbose' and 'dryrun'
flags ... (somewhat hackish solution)
> >
>
> Acked-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Reilly <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > common/boot.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/common/boot.c b/common/boot.c
> > index 07b67734d..183e6bb43 100644
> > --- a/common/boot.c
> > +++ b/common/boot.c
> > @@ -77,7 +77,6 @@ static int bootscript_boot(struct bootentry *entry, int
> > verbose, int dryrun)>
> > if (dryrun) {
> >
> > printf("Would run %s\n", bs->scriptpath);
> >
> > - return 0;
>
> Maybe change message to reflect the new reality?
> > s/Would run/Running/
Sure, I can do this, unless we think the extra parameter should be added to
the command.
Cheers
Marc
> >
>
> > }
> >
> > globalvar_add_simple("linux.bootargs.dyn.ip", NULL);
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
