From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: console vs earlycon ?
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:57:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5490668.HV7UIzY6eu@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNARem16fTim8Ds_y8ezMusz_aRtv6c59KoxyC0rLV-RBWw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wednesday 21 October 2015 17:21:07 Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
>
>
> I think there are three places where console could be enabled.
>
> [1] earlycon
>
> Each driver entry is declared with
> EARLYCON_DECLARE() or OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE()
>
>
>
> [2] console_init()
>
> Each entry is declared with console_initcall()
>
>
>
> [3] when driver is probed
> The console is usually enabled at this point
> unless some special treatment is done.
>
>
>
>
> My question is about [2].
>
> I am using 8250-ish UART device.
>
>
> I noticed univ8250_console_match() and univ8250_console_setup()
> always fail at the point of [2] unless early_serial_setup() has been
> called in advance;
> however, it looks like early_serial_setup() is only used for old platforms.
>
> So, console cannot be enabled at [2] for modern platforms.
>
>
> My questions are:
>
> - Given that earlycon can be now available for major architectures such ARM,
> [2] will be deprecated at some point in the future?
>
> - I am implementing earlycon for my own UART driver.
> Is it meaningless to implement console_initcall() as well as earlycon?
I would still do both. We don't enable earlycon by default at the moment,
and I'd say things should remain working with just console_initcall().
How closely related to 8250 is your hardware? If it's not all that different,
you should probably reuse the existing driver.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: console vs earlycon ?
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:57:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5490668.HV7UIzY6eu@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNARem16fTim8Ds_y8ezMusz_aRtv6c59KoxyC0rLV-RBWw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wednesday 21 October 2015 17:21:07 Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
>
>
> I think there are three places where console could be enabled.
>
> [1] earlycon
>
> Each driver entry is declared with
> EARLYCON_DECLARE() or OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE()
>
>
>
> [2] console_init()
>
> Each entry is declared with console_initcall()
>
>
>
> [3] when driver is probed
> The console is usually enabled at this point
> unless some special treatment is done.
>
>
>
>
> My question is about [2].
>
> I am using 8250-ish UART device.
>
>
> I noticed univ8250_console_match() and univ8250_console_setup()
> always fail at the point of [2] unless early_serial_setup() has been
> called in advance;
> however, it looks like early_serial_setup() is only used for old platforms.
>
> So, console cannot be enabled at [2] for modern platforms.
>
>
> My questions are:
>
> - Given that earlycon can be now available for major architectures such ARM,
> [2] will be deprecated at some point in the future?
>
> - I am implementing earlycon for my own UART driver.
> Is it meaningless to implement console_initcall() as well as earlycon?
I would still do both. We don't enable earlycon by default at the moment,
and I'd say things should remain working with just console_initcall().
How closely related to 8250 is your hardware? If it's not all that different,
you should probably reuse the existing driver.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-21 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-21 8:21 console vs earlycon ? Masahiro Yamada
2015-10-21 8:21 ` Masahiro Yamada
2015-10-21 8:57 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2015-10-21 8:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 9:09 ` Masahiro Yamada
2015-10-21 9:09 ` Masahiro Yamada
2015-10-21 9:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 9:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 9:30 ` Masahiro Yamada
2015-10-21 9:30 ` Masahiro Yamada
2015-10-21 10:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 10:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 13:53 ` Peter Hurley
2015-10-21 13:53 ` Peter Hurley
2015-10-21 14:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 14:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 15:32 ` Peter Hurley
2015-10-21 15:32 ` Peter Hurley
2015-10-21 19:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 19:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 19:24 ` Peter Hurley
2015-10-21 19:24 ` Peter Hurley
2015-10-21 22:54 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 22:54 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-21 13:20 ` Peter Hurley
2015-10-21 13:20 ` Peter Hurley
2015-10-22 4:47 ` Masahiro Yamada
2015-10-22 4:47 ` Masahiro Yamada
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5490668.HV7UIzY6eu@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=stefan@agner.ch \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.