From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikolay Dimitrov Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 22:56:21 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] embestmx6boards: Increase boot delay to 3s In-Reply-To: <548DA446.7@gmail.com> References: <1418408179-30644-1-git-send-email-picmaster@mail.bg> <20141213151648.42c75b46@e6520eb.localdomain> <548C63BB.5010108@mail.bg> <20141213180310.76512e06@e6520eb.localdomain> <548DA446.7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <548DF975.9050702@mail.bg> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Iain, On 12/14/2014 04:52 PM, Iain Paton wrote: > On 13/12/14 17:03, Eric B?nard wrote: >> Hi Nikolay, >> >> Le Sat, 13 Dec 2014 18:05:15 +0200, >> Nikolay Dimitrov a ?crit : >>> On 12/13/2014 04:16 PM, Eric B?nard wrote: > >>>> This will increase the boot time by 2 seconds : why is that needed ? >>> >>> Thanks for commenting. My intent is to give by default a reasonable >>> time for the end-user to react and break the boot-sequence if needed >>> (and avoid the nasty racing against the clock for this precious >>> key-press). >>> >>> My motivation for this is that I see RIoTboard/MarsBoard mostly as >>> boards that people can use for experimentation/prototyping, and not as >>> a finished end-product, thus my thinking that the slightly increased >>> boot-time won't be a critical issue for such applications. Still >>> everyone can change the delay at will if they want to optimize the boot. >>> >>> Other hobby boards also have similarly handy boot-timings, like >>> Wandboard (5s), Novena (5s), Udoo (3s). >>> >> OK seems reasonable. > > I disagree. I think it's an unnecessary, unneeded, unreasonable tripling > of the boot time. I have 2 things to say about this: 1. In theory we can also question why the initial boot delay was selected to be 1s. 2. You imply that the "users" want ultra-fast boot times for riotboard. Being myself one of the riotboard users, I can assure you that such generalization is excessive. > Rather than leaving people to patch out this unwanted behaviour, I'd suggest > promoting CONFIG_BOOTDELAY into a Kconfig option, leaving the default as-is. This is a good idea in general, I don't mind it. > This also leads to a slightly less unreasonable increase in bootdelay to 2s > from config_distro_defaults.h Well, this is again subjective - we can always argue that 2s is both too long and too short for selected use cases, so I don't understand the qualification "less unreasonable". In summary - I won't carry a war for this change, as it doesn't worth it. I just tried to contribute a tiny bit of improvement to the already excellent work of Eric, so we can have a silk-smooth out-of-the-box U-Boot user experience, and I'm doing this as an actual riotboard user. That's all. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. Kind regards, Nikolay