On 18 March 2014 11:30, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > In message < capcvp5fnjo9y3mkhudgar1jx0tfhkexu06bbtg5nccsq3wb...@mail.gmail.com> you wrote: >> >> If I remember, fixup_silent_linux ensures that 'console=' is present >> in the kernel arguments (i.e. it will replace console=/dev/ttyS0 (or >> similar) with console=). >> >> I think preferred behavior for this may be to instead leave any >> 'console' arguments as they are and instead ensure that 'quiet' or >> 'loglevel=1' is present instead. There are two motivations for doing >> this - the first is that when using a lower loglevel you still get >> suppressed kernel output - but you also get any errors. Thus if >> something goes wrong you'll see why rather than wonder if U-Boot even >> started the kernel. The second is that I've seen a few times in the >> past where setting console to nothing (console=) results in strange >> behavior (it once increased boot time). After all we want a console we >> just don't want to use it as much. I can provide a patch for this if >> you think you may take it? > > I have to admit that I don't know if this is a good idea. I do know > that some users use this feature to make sure the console port is > completely free, and no characters ever are sent to it, for example > because they use it for application specific purposes. Of course one > might ask if this is a good idea (IMO a separate console port is a > very useful feature), but you know how some companies design their > hardware...
Yes I can understand why they would want to do that. However I would argue that using the 'silent' feature isn't the correct way to achieve it. If a user depends on having a console completely free then they probably shouldn't add a 'console=xyz' to their boot args in the first place. Thanks, Andrew Murray
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
