Breaking into UBoot fails if not built with echo

[wwahammy]

bft uses the echo command to verify that it has successfully broke into uboot. Unfortunately, not all uboot builds have echo built in. This was a problem on the AP143 developer board

bft should have a way of handling this situation. @mattsm suggested I use the version command instead. This would be a good work around in this case. Would there be a feasible situation where the version command wouldn't be built in? (Is that possible on uboot?) The key is we should have reliable solution to this so breaking into uboot is successful in almost all cases

[mbanders]

We'd have to view the list of available commands on all the versions of uboot people are interested in supporting. I like the idea of trying echo and if that returns 'not found' or whatever then trying version next. That should cover most uboot versions no?

[mattsm]

Yea, 'help' might even be more common. One thing we do do is use && and || to run on pass or failure of the previous command. That functionality might be removed from U-Boot as well. There are always alternatives on how to handle this.

[mattsm]

Yea, 'help' might even be more common. One thing we do do is use && and ||
to run on pass or failure of the previous command. That functionality might
be removed from U-Boot as well. There are always alternatives on how to
handle this.

-M

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:56 PM Mike Anderson notifications@github.com
wrote:

We'd have to view the list of available commands on all the versions of
uboot people are interested in supporting. I like the idea of trying echo
and if that returns 'not found' or whatever then trying version next.
That should cover most uboot versions no?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#64 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA_05U6wZ8MTTAFmWOM8XcSBDPzxIO5zks5qcNVegaJpZM4Jb2Vu
.