Am Mittwoch, 10. April 2013, 18:13:57 schrieb Joe Hershberger:
> > disabling the network console before control is handed over to an
> > operating system sounds reasonable.
> >
> > If i understand you correctly, the network will only be halted once the
> > bootloader starts an operating system. Th
Am 2013-04-10 18:13, schrieb Joe Hershberger:
Hi Michael,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Michael Walle
wrote:
On Wed, April 10, 2013 03:51, Joe Hershberger wrote:
Hi Michael,
I just tested this on my Zynq target and it worked. However, you
make
a good point that it is possible for there
Hi Joe,
Am Mittwoch 10 April 2013, 18:13:57 schrieb Joe Hershberger:
> > If i understand you correctly, the network will only be halted once the
> > bootloader starts an operating system. Then what do you think about
> > making either the nc_send_packet() or nc_putc()/nc_puts() function a
> > noo
Hi Michael,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
> On Wed, April 10, 2013 03:51, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> I just tested this on my Zynq target and it worked. However, you make
>> a good point that it is possible for there to be more traces after the
>> eth_hal
On Wed, April 10, 2013 03:51, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I just tested this on my Zynq target and it worked. However, you make
> a good point that it is possible for there to be more traces after the
> eth_halt call. I can't imagine the stack would like that in all
> situations (sin
Hi Michael,
I just tested this on my Zynq target and it worked. However, you make
a good point that it is possible for there to be more traces after the
eth_halt call. I can't imagine the stack would like that in all
situations (since eth_init() will not be called again by netconsole).
I think t
6 matches
Mail list logo
