From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:00:11 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Porting UBoot without UART In-Reply-To: <20050225075152.8240FC1430@atlas.denx.de> References: <528646bc0502242240233e0d7f@mail.gmail.com> <20050225075152.8240FC1430@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <528646bc0502250800b68e268@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:51:47 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Grant, > > in message <528646bc0502242240233e0d7f@mail.gmail.com> you wrote: > > > > > > >From the original post: "We're using some emulation box to develop our > > SoC. Somehow the UART will the last component available for firmware > > development." > > > > I don't think that is the situation that Shawn is describing. To me > > it sounded like he is starting firmware development before all of the > > functionality is delivered by the hardware engineers. I don't think > > You are right. Then Ladislav Michl suggested to use special console > functions for output, which works, but misses most of the > "interesting" startup messages which are printed long before the > device funtions are installed. Ahh, thank you. I had misunderstood what you were talking about. > > that he is refering to initialization order. Shawn, could you please > > clarify? > > Initialization order plays only a role here as a console device > starts working too late. The native console port is the serial port. So what needs to be modified to do this? Create new serial_putc, _getc, _init etc. functions that send messages to where he needs them? Cheers, g.