[U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc/85xx: corenet_ds: increase console buffer size to 1024

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott Wood,

In message <4E80EA72.3090807 at freescale.com> you wrote:
>
> > Do we? We have not had that feature for over a decade and nobody ever
> > really suffered from it. Now we have "env -f reset" for almost a
> > year, and guess how many percent of the users even know about this
> > command? And how many have ever actually used it yet?
> 
> I think he's saying that one shouldn't be prohibited by length from
> manually typing "setenv nfsboot ..." to set a value that is no longer
> than (or even is identical to) the default value.

It is up to the board maintainer not to set any default values that
are longer than the buffer size he defines himself in the same config
file.

> What is the resource constraint here that prevents accepting longer
> console commands?  This is a change to the config for a board that comes
> with multiple gigabytes of RAM.  This is not code that runs prior to
> relocation.

It is simply braindead to define variables which are so long. They
are unreadable and a PITA to edit.

You don't write all your C code in a single line per function, or do
you?

> Whether the environment scripts could, in time, be structured better is
> a separate issue from whether there's a good reason to keep this
> arbitrary limit at its current value that prevents people from manually
> typing in what is currently being used.

The question is what the bug is.  My point of view is that the bug is
with a variable definition that is longer than the limit, so the
variable should be changed (as the limit is already more than
reasonably long).

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Business is like a wheelbarrow. Nothing ever happens until you  start
pushing.