From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 17:04:22 -0700
Subject: [U-Boot] Endless loop in cmd_log.c?
In-Reply-To: <1273188447.22784.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1273069733-6194-1-git-send-email-weisserm@arcor.de>	
	<1273069733-6194-2-git-send-email-weisserm@arcor.de>	
	<1273069733-6194-3-git-send-email-weisserm@arcor.de>	
	<1273069733-6194-4-git-send-email-weisserm@arcor.de>	
	<012501caec88$40387670$c0a96350$@com>
	<1273188447.22784.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <019a01caed78$da423170$8ec69450$@com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Peter, reply inline below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Tyser [mailto:ptyser at xes-inc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:27 PM
> To: Dennis Ruffer
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Endless loop in cmd_log.c?
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 12:22 -0700, Dennis Ruffer wrote:
> > I am trying to implement CONFIG_LOGBUFFER and CONFIG_CMD_LOG on our
> ARM
> > systems and I seem to have run into an endless loop.  With loglevel=5
> so we
> > still see our console output, the printf at the end of logbuff_printk
> > appears to create an endless loop.
> >
> > I had to replace that line with serial_puts(msg);
> >
> > Have I missed some other solution or do the systems that use this
> never set
> > logbuffer higher than default_message_loglevel?
> 
> I see the same issue you describe when enabling CONFIG_LOGBUFFER.  It
> looks like only a few boards have CONFIG_LOGBUFFER enabled, and many of
> them also have CONFIG_SYS_CONSOLE_IS_IN_ENV defined.  When
> CONFIG_SYS_CONSOLE_IS_IN_ENV is defined I believe the behavior is
> changed so that the the  stdout/stderr/stdin values are read from the
> environment, with a default fallback of 'serial'.
> 
> My guess is most of the boards with CONFIG_LOGBUFFER defined have their
> 'stdout' value set to 'serial', so they don't actually utilize the
> logbuffer, and thus don't run into the issue you found.
> 
> In any case, I think its a bug and your suggested workaround sounds
> good
> to me.  Have any interest in submitting a patch to fix it?
> 
> Best,
> Peter

I'm hoping to get setup to submit patches eventually, but I'm not there yet and it's not on my critical path at the moment.  I'm just glad to hear I hadn't missed some critical setup piece.

Thanks for verifying it!

DaR