On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 11:20:43PM +0100, Uwe Hermann wrote: > I don't object to the patch, and we should probably fix this in all > other southbridges, I think the same problem applies there. > > But: the die() call itself also does a printk(), so that'll still hang > if the error path is chosen (at that point it probably doesn't matter > much, though, as we die anyway).
Right, I think it does not matter. If the die happens when printk is already functional, great, if not it will hang there which is fine. > I also agree that die() should have a POST code, preferrably something > easy to remember. It already has a commented-out "//post_code(0xff);". > Not sure why it's disabled, but I think it should be something other > than 0xff, that's a bit too "special" for my taste. > > We have "0xee: Not supposed to get here" as per documentation/POSTCODES, > so maybe we can use 0xdd ("d" as in die), if that's not already used > elsewhere. So, thinking about this a little more, I'm not sure adding a post code to 'die' is a good idea. The problem with doing that is that it would clobber any previous post codes, which might be a better indicator for what's going wrong. Perhaps a good way to deal with fatal runtime error conditions would be a) set a unique post code b) call die in the assumption that die does not clobber the post code. What do you think? Thanks, Ward. -- Ward Vandewege <w...@fsf.org> Free Software Foundation - Senior Systems Administrator -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot