[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4134303.BAT7dSJRN3@wuerfel>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:54:28 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: console vs earlycon ?
On Wednesday 21 October 2015 15:24:41 Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 03:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Yes, I see this as a tradeoff: we want the console to be as early as
> > possible in order to report boot-time errors to the user, but not so early
> > to require hacks that can cause problems themselves. earlycon has to
> > do some scary stuff and is relatively recent, while the hacks
> > necessary for console_init() are much older and better tested.
>
> I assume you mean the hacks necessary to get _earlycon_ working at
> console_init() time, because the hacks necessary to get non-8250
> serial consoles working at console_init() would be extensive and
> brand new.
>
No, I was just being slow and assumed that the 51 drivers that come with
a console_initcall() do something in there to actually start the console,
but you are right that most of them don't actually do that. They just
call register_console() and wait for the device to show up later.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists