From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Fleming Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:27:59 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 4/7] dfu: MMC specific routines for DFU operation In-Reply-To: <201207131229.31122.marex@denx.de> References: <1341308291-14663-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <20120712143927.4e2db213@lmajewski.digital.local> <20120712124645.GB7993@oliver-linux> <201207131229.31122.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de >> > Generally it is in my opinion a good way to go. >> > >> > However, why we aren't first writing sanity checks for passed arguments? >> >> Simply because I didn't want to ask you to do a lot more unrelated work >> >> :) If you want to split and check the mmc (and fatwrite) argueuments >> >> and then make the DFU series depend on that, by all means please do so! > > Would be cool indeed. > >> > We are adding one more level of abstraction, but don't think of the main >> > problem (checking values of passed arguments)? >> > >> > Anyway we shall wait for Marek's opinion. >> >> Yes, a good idea as well. > > My opinion is that if you'll do the sanity checks, that'd be good. We're right > before .07 release anyway, so the patches will hit the next merge window. Are > you up for doing a lot of unrelated work to make this proper? I agree with the general sense that adding sanity checking would be good. Just because I was too lazy to add them, doesn't mean I was right. ;) Andy