From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:10:48 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: add support for uart earlyprintk
In-Reply-To: <512F40B9.6020105@arm.com>
References: <1362049268-26822-1-git-send-email-apatel@apm.com>
 <512F40B9.6020105@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20130228121047.GF30747@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:34:17AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 28/02/13 11:01, Anup Patel wrote:
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> >   * PL011 single character TX.
> >   */
> >  static void pl011_printch(char ch)
> > @@ -47,6 +62,7 @@ struct earlycon_match {
> >  
> >  static const struct earlycon_match earlycon_match[] __initconst = {
> >  	{ .name = "pl011", .printch = pl011_printch, },
> > +	{ .name = "uart", .printch = uart_printch, },
> 
> "uart" is way too generic. pl011 is an UART too, and I suspect most of
> the backends that are going to be added here over time will be UARTs.
> 
> "uart8250" would be a possibility (and actually consistent with the rest
> of the kernel, see drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_early.c.

I think it makes more sense to use the existing 8250_early.c driver. It
has more features than the simple earlyprintk implementation in the
64-bit kernel (like parsing more parameters, initialising the UART). The
only difference is that the early_param is called "earlycon".

-- 
Catalin