On Thursday 08 December 2011 05:14:36 Stefano Babic wrote: > On 07/12/2011 19:47, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Simon Schwarz wrote: > >>> So if the parse function fails, we should have the fallback to u-boot, > >>> exactly as we have now the fallback from u-boot.img to u-boot.bin. > >> > >> Hm, I don't think that we want any fallback here. I would prefere an > >> error message and hang. The direct boot is designed to be used in the > >> field - so IMHO we don't want to start the bootloader automatically if a > >> normal startup fails. > > > > I feel it is better to start U-Boot and enable the user to analyze the > > situation instead of just hanging hard. > > > > Just my 0.02# > > Personally I think also that having a fallback is a good idea. I have in > mind a lot of boards that have not buttons or an available interface to > a simple GPIO, making any interaction impossible. If we have not a > fallback, we increase the risk for the end users to damage the boards if > for example the kernel is updated. > > Apart a mechanism with a GPIO, can we think to use in a simple way the > console for this ? SPL supports it, and we could share the same > mechanism for all boards, in such way as we stop the autoboot in U-Boot.
isn't this the purpose of the boot progress / led code ? -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
