From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Jackson Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:45:59 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Allow console input to be disabled In-Reply-To: <20080809231636.2EB1E24885@gemini.denx.de> References: <48905BE7.1060402@mimc.co.uk> <20080807122701.202ee982@hskinnemo-gx745.norway.atmel.com> <489AEDF7.9000400@ge.com> <20080809231636.2EB1E24885@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <489F2957.9090701@mimc.co.uk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Jerry Van Baren, > > In message <489AEDF7.9000400@ge.com> you wrote: >> For what it is worth, I'm with Haavard - it seems useful. WRT the >> dangerous part - it's intended use is for debug, so presumably it will > > It may be intended for debug, but it's available there without warning > for the end user. Is there some "warning" mechanism I should use ? >> be the developer that locks himself out of the console and will have the >> tools to break back in. From that POV, it isn't any more dangerous than >> all the other ways a user/developer can brick a board (starting with >> erasing flash ;-). > > I think this one is a bit nastier. It's like this rope hanging out of > a black box labeled "silencer". The label doesn't mention that it > goes "KABOOOOM!" first, before there is a big silence (and a cloud of > dust and a pile of debris). I agree that it could all go very wrong, but it was a quick and easy way for me to implement that particular feature. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to achieve the same outcome in a less "hoist by your own petard" way ? Mark