On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 01:58:57PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Simon,
> 
> In message <CAPnjgZ106dBqzJdVYpufp4mztf3_eFoX9isSm=W_c5uDoFJVGA@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> >
> > > I really think your fixed filename proposal does not work well in
> > > reality.  The file name should be Kconfig configurable. See [1]
> > > for details.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2021-October/462668.html
> >
> > Yes I saw that but I forgot to look at it. I think it makes sense - we
> > do that with devicetree, for example.
> >
> > Is that the only thing holding you back?
> 
> Basically yes - the only other concerns I have is about this +=
> construct which makes the '+' character an illegal character for
> environment variable names, but only when used at the end of the
> variable.  This is anything but nice or consistent. Iwonder what
> happens with notations like these:
> 
> 	foo+=bar	-> "bar" gets appended to current value of "foo"
> But what for:
> 	foo\+=bar
> or
> 	foo+ = bar
> 
> ?
> 
> And please see also my comments about changing the autostart
> functionality for the user.

Perhaps we should just make "+" an illegal character in the variable
name, for consistency?

> > I haven't seen any positive comments to this series yet...
> 
> Maybe many long-term users of U-Boot don't see the current situation
> as such a big problem?  I have no idea.

Considering the number of external to U-Boot projects for dealing with
the environment in U-Boot, I don't think that's the case.

Simon, perhaps it's worth poking some of those people off-list with a
pointer to your series?  Something like this should make integration
much easier, for most of the existing OTA solutions that support U-Boot.
It should also make it easier for OE/buildroot/etc to explain to users
how to modify the environment as well.

-- 
Tom