Dear Paul Gortmaker, In message <4ac3c540.9050...@windriver.com> you wrote: > > If you still think it is best to maintain current behaviour > and not stop after the 1st error, that is fine, I can do that, > but I just wanted to be sure it was clear why I did it this > way.
I have used the code many times (well, to be honest, not sooo many times, but several times) exactly that way: letting it run forever (or, for a long time), while manipulating the hardware (like using a hair dryer resp. cooling spray on it). In such a situation it is very useful when the code does _not_ terminate after the first error (even is this might have been the intention in earlier versions). So beause (1) it is the behaviour users might be used to, (2) I see use cases for this and (3) adding a new option will allow to have both beheaviours so anybody can chose what he wants, I think we should do as I suggested. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de "The whole world is about three drinks behind." - Humphrey Bogart _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
