From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:00:50 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mem_mtest: bail out after finding 1st memory
 error.
In-Reply-To: <20090930214628.A8B8F832E408@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1254338488-15332-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
	<20090930202343.244A1832E408@gemini.denx.de>
	<4AC3C540.9050004@windriver.com>
	<20090930214628.A8B8F832E408@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4AC4B612.7020306@windriver.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

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Paul Gortmaker,
> 
> In message <4AC3C540.9050004@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
>