On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:23:55AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Lu Baolu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hiding essentially an early udelay() implementation in an early-printk > > > driver is > > > ugly and counterproductive.
> Yeah - so could we do this in a more generic fashion, not in the early-printk > driver but in core x86 code? So ideally early_printk() would not depend on udelay() being setup. In fact, ideally early_printk() wouldn't even use udelay -- this very much includes its own copy. Why is udelay() required? Can't the thing simply poll its own register state to wait for completion? This all sounds like xdbc cruft is still unreliably garbage..
