Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Jerry Van Baren, > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > > For what it is worth, I'm with Haavard - it seems useful. WRT the > > dangerous part - it's intended use is for debug, so presumably it will > > It may be intended for debug, but it's available there without warning > for the end user.
Hang on...end users can compile custom versions of u-boot now? And we're somehow responsible for stopping them from bricking their boards when they go and enable options they don't understand? How about CONFIG_SKIP_LOW_LEVEL_INIT then? That's _certainly_ dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. > > be the developer that locks himself out of the console and will have the > > tools to break back in. From that POV, it isn't any more dangerous than > > all the other ways a user/developer can brick a board (starting with > > erasing flash ;-). > > I think this one is a bit nastier. It's like this rope hanging out of > a black box labeled "silencer". The label doesn't mention that it > goes "KABOOOOM!" first, before there is a big silence (and a cloud of > dust and a pile of debris). The board will most likely still boot, so the "end user" can use other tools to fix the breakage. Then again, maybe this thing deserves its own environment variable? "disable_input" or something? It certainly deserves to be mentioned in README, as I noted before. Haavard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
