Hi Andreas,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Andreas Bießmann < andreas.de...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hi Graeme, > > On 04/16/2013 03:35 PM, Graeme Russ wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Andreas Bießmann > > <andreas.de...@googlemail.com <mailto:andreas.de...@googlemail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Dear Wolfgang, > >> > >> On 04/16/2013 03:05 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > >> > Dear Andreas, > >> > > >> > In message <516d4b00.9030...@gmail.com > > <mailto:516d4b00.9030...@gmail.com>> you wrote: > > <snip> > > > I think that ultimately there should only be a single hang() function > > Ok. > > >> > Note that hang() is not supposed to do anything else, it just hangs > >> > the system. If you have a debugger attached, you will be able to do a > >> > simple stack backtrace and see exactly where you are hanging, and why. > >> > >> Well, for this specific board I plan to panic() on wrong hardware > >> detection (which will in turn call hang()). My requirements say that I > >> have to visualize this state then, I thought it would be a good idea to > >> blink some lights in the endless loop in hang() for this specific board. > >> > >> > If you think you need to have specialized code, you are doing > >> > something wrong. > >> > >> Really? How would you solve this requirement? > > > > Doesn't it make sense to use panic()? > > In my opinion it makes sense to panic(). In my special case I also need > to hang() when panic(). The next question is then how to visualize the > (end-)user of that device that we hang(). In panic()? My thought would be along the lines of: - Detect something fatal - Call panic() - Do something to alert the user - puts(), start a LED blinking, etc. - Stay in panic() if you need CPU cycles to keep alerting the user (LED blinking for example) - Call hang() if you've done everything you can Regards, Graeme
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
