From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:52:20 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: add support for uart earlyprintk
In-Reply-To: <20130228121047.GF30747@arm.com>
References: <1362049268-26822-1-git-send-email-apatel@apm.com>
 <512F40B9.6020105@arm.com> <20130228121047.GF30747@arm.com>
Message-ID: <512F5304.4070006@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 28/02/13 12:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 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".

Indeed, this seems to be the best way, as it removes the need for this
patch altogether.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...