From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hitoshi Mitake Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 14:37:13 +0000 Subject: Re: Missing of "Uncompressing Linux... " message at boot sequence Message-Id: <4BE6C899.20307@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> List-Id: References: <4BDFCEF4.8010607@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <4BDFCEF4.8010607@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Thanks for your reply, Paul! On 05/06/10 13:49, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 04:38:28PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: >> In arch/sh/boot/compressed/misc.c the function puts() is defined like this: >> >> int puts(const char *s) >> { >> /* This should be updated to use the sh-sci routines */ >> return 0; >> } >> >> Of course this makes no output. >> So I cannot see the message "Uncompressing Linux... Ok, booting the >> kernel." now. >> # The change was made at abec86a80247ab3a40d2afc9c8e8c26efcab2391 >> >> So I have a question: >> Do you have any plan to revive the "Uncompressing" message? >> > I suppose you ran in to this because you are one of the few people still > using sh-bios. The current sh-bios code has been generalized a fair bit, > but we could restore this functionality if it ends up being useful for > you. > > In my experience the sh-bios implementation has been unreliable at the > best of times, so this early puts stuff was never really useful in the > first place. I suspect there are also outstanding issues with trapping in > to the bios after the system has booted, as this code doesn't see much > use in general. > I didn't care about quality of sh-bios, because I don't have serious SuperH development experience like working on several boards. Your opinion is really helpful for me, thanks :) >> The comment says that puts() should use the routines of sh-sci. >> But sh-sci is the thing built in vmlinux, so I think using it from >> misc.c is hard. >> To revive it, big change will be required. >> > Correct. The idea was to reuse parts of the sh-sci code, rather than > linking it in directly. If it were just a simple case we could have > easily accomodated this through the header alone and simply inlined it, > but unfortunately there is not enough consistency between CPUs to make > this terribly realistic. This is largely why things like the sh-bios > abstraction exists in the first place. Ah, I didn't understand the relation between CPUs and serial. > >> If you have a plan to revive the message, I'd like to co-operate. >> Because I'm working on new board support, serial output is a big problem >> for me. >> > I'll have a look at restoring it, but be forewarned that there will > likely be outstanding sh-bios issues. If you're able to assist with > debugging this then of course I have no problem with reinstanting this > sort of support. > Thanks! If you make changes on this problem, could you tell me? I'll test on some boards.