From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:22:48 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 5/5] tegra: Implement board_pre_console_panic() for Seaboard In-Reply-To: References: <1332188824-5447-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <1332188824-5447-5-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <4F67A2A6.8030708@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <4F67DBE8.4030600@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 03/19/2012 04:59 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 03/19/2012 02:27 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> We enable this feature on all UARTs for Seaboard. This ensures that a >>> message is printed if CONFIG_OF_CONTROL is in use and a value device tree >>> is not available. >> >> Why not just enabled this on UARTD, since that's what Seaboard uses? >> >> I guess some derivatives do use UARTB too, which makes things quite >> painful. Perhaps at least limit this to UARTB + UARTD, and not all the >> others? > > At the moment we can use Seaboard as a generic Tegra2 board, so we > want the widest possible select of UARTs. I think there is one board > that uses A? > > Really I would prefer that we explicitly create a generic Tegra2 > board, once the fdt stuff is bedded in. Well, one of Wolfgang's main objections was blasting the panic message through all possible UARTs, which might send junk to something other than a debug UART (e.g. machinery and life support systems were mentioned). This change doesn't seem to solve that. For low-level debug like this, shouldn't we just route it to one single UART that the config file selects? We can certainly think about refactoring things into a unified board file, but that seems like something unrelated to do later...