Linux PARISC architecture development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frank Rowand <frank_rowand@hp.com>
To: Grant Grundler <grundler@cup.hp.com>
Cc: parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com,
	Helge Deller <Helge.Deller@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] LASI and serial port initialization
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:46:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <380CA049.E16634DF@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 199910191630.JAA27454@milano.cup.hp.com

Grant Grundler wrote:
> 
> Helge and I exchanged some e-mail on the topic of LASI vis a vie
> serial port initialization. Since then, I've come to the conclusion
> all (or most) parisc platforms will have a similar problem.
> 
> The problem is LASI is "discovered" and initialized well after several
> other drivers want to print things to the console. I see a few options
> on how to handle it:
> 1) For each platform, force the console to be the first device "discovered"
>    and initialized. This is not a really good idea since console can be
>    different depending on configuration. Rebuilding the kernel to use
>    a different console doesn't seem reasonable to me. Having the user
>    figure out which devices need to be initialized first and build an
>    appropriate kernel so console works also seems unreasonable.  We are
>    headed down this path now though....
> 
> 2) Use IODC until the console device is "owned" by the appropriate driver
>    and can start taking input/output.
> 
> 3) buffer the output instead of calling IODC.
>    Size of the buffer will impose some sort of limit.
>    I think this is what HP-UX does but don't really know
>    and it shouldn't matter to us.

Yes, this is what HP-UX does.  And in the case of a panic, the buffered
messages are flushed to the console via IODC.

> Either 2 or 3 requires some software layer behind printk to change
> behavior at some point. I don't know where that point is or how
> exactly to define it. I just thought going down path #1 is going
> to be a real pain to support on a broad set of platforms.
> 
> Any other thoughts?

Yes, 2 or 3 sound best.

Some pros & cons... (assume that the pros are the opposite of the cons
for the other option)

  2) con: - polled I/O
          - may need to add infrastructure to do IODC I/O (but this should
            be in place for the panic and dump path anyway)
     pro: - should work on all platforms, once it works on one

  3) con: - when debugging new drivers and platforms, you won't get any
            debugging messages until the console driver works

-Frank

  reply	other threads:[~1999-10-19 16:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <99101821580101.00297@P100>
1999-10-19 16:30 ` [parisc-linux] LASI and serial port initialization Grant Grundler
1999-10-19 16:46   ` Frank Rowand [this message]
1999-10-19 16:58   ` Alan Cox
1999-10-19 17:22   ` Philipp Rumpf
1999-10-19 17:32 Mike Hibler
1999-10-19 18:36 ` Grant Grundler
1999-10-19 20:13   ` Phil Schwan

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=380CA049.E16634DF@hp.com \
    --to=frank_rowand@hp.com \
    --cc=Helge.Deller@ruhr-uni-bochum.de \
    --cc=frowand@cup.hp.com \
    --cc=grundler@cup.hp.com \
    --cc=parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox