[PATCH v2] barebox update: add note after successful update

[Stefan Christ]

Hi Eric,

> maybe loadenv -d; saveenv is less invasive than saveenv -z in order to
> preserve nv ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. 'loadenv -d' will reset all nv variables which
are already defined in the default environment. Only variables which are not in
the default environment are left as is.

The same holds for all files in /env/. If they don't exist in the default
environment, they won't be overwritten. Right?

Hmm. I would prefer to cleanup the whole environment for the user, so no left
over files may interfere the boot process. That guarantees a consistent state
of the environment, which should work as-is.

What are your thoughts?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
	Stefan Christ

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 09:59:19AM +0200, Eric Bénard wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> Le Fri, 5 Jun 2015 09:51:25 +0200,
> Stefan Christ <s.christ at phytec.de> a écrit :
> 
> > Some users of the barebox_update command forget to erase the external
> > barebox environment after updating the barebox. Using an old barebox
> > environment leads to various problems if there were major changes.
> > 
> > So add a gentle reminder after the successful update.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Christ <s.christ at phytec.de>
> > ---
> > v2: Add explanation howto to clean up the environment
> > ---
> >  common/bbu.c | 9 ++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/common/bbu.c b/common/bbu.c
> > index 7fb154a..d23b864 100644
> > --- a/common/bbu.c
> > +++ b/common/bbu.c
> > @@ -113,8 +113,15 @@ int barebox_update(struct bbu_data *data)
> >  	if (ret == -EINTR)
> >  		printf("update aborted\n");
> >  
> > -	if (!ret)
> > +	if (!ret) {
> >  		printf("update succeeded\n");
> > +		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ENV_HANDLING)) {
> > +			printf("You maybe want to erase the barebox environment now.\n");
> > +			printf("After booting the flashed barebox you can use\n");
> > +			printf("    $ saveenv -z; loadenv\n");
> > +			printf("to do that.\n");
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> maybe loadenv -d; saveenv is less invasive than saveenv -z in order to
> preserve nv ?
> 
> Eric