On 18. 02. 19 09:06, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
On 18.02.19 08:56, Tomaž Šolc wrote:
On 18. 02. 19 08:12, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
+In case the bootloader is responsible for watchdog activation, the
system can
+be considered as failed by design.
I think this is too strongly worded and I would leave out this last
sentence. It seems arrogant for documentation to judge what is "failed
by design" like this, without considering any other requirements for a
system.
Can you please provide an example of a requirement, which can't be
considered as bad design.
Not everything is an avionics system that needs to address cosmic
particles or whatever. That doesn't make it a bad design and it's not
realistic to expect everything to be made up to such standards.
Documentation calling 90% of systems out there "failed by design" is
just driving potential users away in my opinion. It's ok to make people
aware of the limitations though (and I think the rest of your text does
that just fine).
You list an example yourself below in the text: things like netboot can
make boot time unpredictable enough that watchdog must be feed during
boot. Are all netboot systems "failed by design"?
Some systems don't allow the watchdog to be enabled permanently, but
need software to enable it (example: bcm2835). Bootloader is the
earliest point where this can be done. This solves a bad kernel update
(might be a requirement for a consumer device), but doesn't address
power supply glitches during bootloader operation (might not be a
requirement).
Anyway, just an opinion from someone new to Barebox.
Best regards
Tomaž
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
