From: Wolfgang Denk Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:21:43 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Memory Functions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:19:56 +0200." <20040908171956.GA7946@umax645sx> Message-ID: <20040908192148.40931C1430@atlas.denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de In message <20040908171956.GA7946@umax645sx> you wrote: > > did anyone ever used md command? Patch below does following: Of course, I use it a lot. > # md 400000 > 00400000: ea000012 .... > # md 400000 4 > 00400000: ea000012 e59ff014 e59ff014 e59ff014 ................ > # md .w 40000 > 00040000: 7b55 U{ > # md .w 40000 4 > 00040000: 7b55 7e24 47b4 67e1 U{$~.G.g > > Wrong parameters are handled too :) Why do you introduce a new command format? At least stick with the existing one! Also, what exactly is the benefit of this change? > Once there, a question comes to mind. Why was this format choosen? Compatibility to exiting tools. See the BDI2000 for example. > md [.b, .w, .l] address [# of objects] > First optional parameter makes parsing a bit more difcult. And why is > width specifier prefixed with dot? And what is .s specifier good for? > Well, more that one question, I know... ;-) You misunderstand (and mis-implement) the format. It's "cp" and "cp.b" or "cp.l" or "cp.w". No space inbetween. > My proposal is to replace cmd_get_data_size with cmd_get_data_size2 and > fix all bugs in its users. How should it be done depends on answers to > questions above. I tend to say that the effort (increased memory footprint) is not worth the additional options. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de I really hate this damned machine It never does quite what I want I wish that they would sell it. But only what I tell it.