Wolfgang Denk wrote: > 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).
Definitely a valid use case. Hopefully one I never have to use personally, mind you. > > 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. OK. I can do that. What about the CONFIG_ALT_MEMTEST then? Should it be changed to run continuously as well, so at least the two tests are consistent in their default behaviours? Paul. > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
