Dear Wolfgang, On 04/16/2013 04:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Andreas, > > In message <516d5d0a.20...@gmail.com> you wrote: >> >> 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(). > > The intention behind hang() is to stop doing anything, i. e. to idle > the board. Nothing else. > > We can argue if this is always a good thing to do. For example, in > some situations it may be possible to switch off the board instead. > Or, as in your case, to run some code to visualize the state. > > I fully agree that these are perfectly reasonable use cases for fatal > error handling in U-Boot. But then, these are not functions to be > implemented in the context of hang(). Hang is a synonym for "place > the CPU into an infinite loop and stop doing anything else". > > If you call hang() you agree to hang the system.
I got your point. > If you want to do something else, then please do not call hang(), but > some other function. I will find a solution for my very specific state of the device. But how about other places in u-boot hang()ing the device? How can we tell the user that state without a terminal? If one plugs a uart cable he might see some cause of the hang() but this is not acceptable for some groups of users. Is it wise to completely stop a device without showing the state to the user? This question is a bit hypothetical cause we should eliminate the root causes for hang()s before going to market. However I would like to hear your thoughts about that. Best regards Andreas Bießmann _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
