Fwd: Shouldn't boot_board be called from boot instead of init?

Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia guille.rodriguez at gmail.com
Mon Aug 22 02:12:55 PDT 2016

Hi Sascha,

2016-08-22 7:45 GMT+02:00 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:02:48AM +0200, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 2016-08-18 8:31 GMT+02:00 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:42:32AM +0200, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
>> >> Hello all,
>> >>
>> >> Currently, for defaultenv v1, the /env/bin/boot_board script is called
>> >> from /env/bin/init.
>> >>
>> >> However this means boot_board will not be run if booting manually (by
>> >> running 'boot' from the barebox console).
>> >>
>> >> Shouldn't this script be called from /env/bin/boot instead? If a board
>> >> needs any specific stuff to be done when booting, this probably
>> >> applies both when autobooting and when booting manually (otherwise,
>> >> anything that only applies only when autobooting could also be done
>> >> from init_board instead of boot_board).
>> >
>> > The only boot_board script we have is
>> > arch/arm/boards/at91sam9m10g45ek/env/bin/boot_board. Here a menu is
>> > built which I think makes sense at that stage and not at init_board.
>> The thing is, if boot_board is called from init, then it will not be
>> called if autoboot is interrupted and you later boot manually with the
>> boot command.
> I think you are right, just go ahead with the suggested change. With
> that a menu will be shown on the at91sam9m10g45ek when doing a manual
> 'boot' which may even be the desired behaviour.

Perfect. Will do so.

>> > However, I would be glad to get rid of defaultenv-1 rather sooner than
>> > later.
>> Uhm. I actually like defaultenv-1 better than defaultenv-2. Why not
>> keep both? Everyone can then make their choice :)
> That's interesting. What do you like better about defaultenv-1? This
> information could help me to improve defaultenv-2.

I guess it is just a matter of personal preference but I find
defaultenv-1 easier to understand and easier to manage. With
defaultenv-1 we basically have just one configuration file to edit
(/env/config) and optionally init_board and/or boot_board (which are
not needed in a majority of the cases). So everything you need to
know/edit/tweak is in /env/config.

With defaultenv-2 the "board configuration" is scattered through a
number of tiny files, some of which contain just a single value (see
for example nv/autoboot_timeout or nv/user). I find this more
difficult to manage -- you need to edit a lot of tiny files instead of
just one. Also I feel that the flow of control is less obvious for the
same reason.

I'd say defaultenv-1 feels more "imperative" and defaultenv-2 feels
more "declarative", and I prefer the former. But I am fully aware that
this is just a matter of personal preference :)


More information about the barebox mailing list