On Tuesday 10 January 2012 14:16:56 Doug Anderson wrote:
As discussed previously on the U-Boot mailing list (see comments on
Fix fixup_silent_linux() buffer overrun patchset), relying on
bootm to mangle the Linux bootargs is not a suggested way to go.
We now officially deprecate it and provide
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
personally i found the current behavior useful, but the code to implement it
is crappy. oh well.
Agreed. However, in the previous thread Wolfgang was of the view that
the behavior of silencing linux is best achieved
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 16:04:27 Doug Anderson wrote:
I believe that you can do a script something like this (where
normal_bootargs is the old bootargs without the console= part,
console_args is the non-silent console settings, and old_bootcmd is
the old bootcmd):
it's not exactly the same
Dear Doug Anderson,
In message CAD=FV=Wr9JNLOP_0=kugv-ao1qf6zxf4xxox3azyh3-ns3v...@mail.gmail.com
you wrote:
personally i found the current behavior useful, but the code to implement it
is crappy. oh well.
Agreed. However, in the previous thread Wolfgang was of the view that
the
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote:
In which way would this approach avoid the problem (potential overflow
of cmdline max size) that you are trying to fix with your patch?
The overflow will be avoided on any boards that don't define
Dear Doug Anderson,
In message CAD=FV=vx-bepx2idra1t1sbt2h6n9vyaytb1hytnjjtna_z...@mail.gmail.com
you wrote:
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote:
In which way would this approach avoid the problem (potential overflow
of cmdline max size)
6 matches
Mail list logo
