On 1/8/19 7:41 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:58 PM Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >> >> On 1/7/19 10:01 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: >>> Am 07.01.2019 um 21:47 schrieb Marek Vasut: >>>> On 1/7/19 9:33 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: >>>>> Am 07.01.2019 um 21:25 schrieb Marek Vasut: >>>>>> On 1/7/19 9:24 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: >>>>>>> Am 07.01.2019 um 21:19 schrieb Marek Vasut: >>>>>>>> On 1/7/19 8:36 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: >>>>>>>>> When debug UART is enabled on socfpga_gen5, the debug uart driver >>>>>>>>> hangs >>>>>>>>> in an endless loop because 'socfpga_bridges_reset' calls printf >>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>> the debug UART is initialized. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After the generic fix for this in the UART driver did not work >>>>>>>>> due to >>>>>>>>> portability issues, let's just drop this printf statement when >>>>>>>>> called >>>>>>>>> from SPL with debug UART enabled. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can we have an un-portable fix which at least works on SoCFPGA ? :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This one worked on socfpga but broke rockchip: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/992553/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, the message below wasn't shown either with that patch >>>>>>> applied. >>>>>>> The code just runs too early to enable the UART. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you want to keep the message (although I failed to see in which >>>>>>> situation it can be printed) or do you just dislike the #ifdef thing? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to keep the error message if possible. Is it possible ? >>>>> >>>>> I have *never* seen this message yet. I have failed to produce a >>>>> situation where it is shown. >>>> >>>> I believe that. >>>> >>>>> This function ('socfpga_bridges_reset') is called 5 times throughout the >>>>> code, but only *one* single time with 'reset=0' as argument (only with >>>>> 0, the code in question is executed). And this is in SPL before >>>>> initializing the console and even before the debug UART can be >>>>> initialized. >>>>> >>>>> As I could see, the printf *is* executed on every boot (I saw the code >>>>> hanging when enabling debug UART). However, when not booting from FPGA, >>>>> it is just normal that the FPGA is not ready when running SPL. Why do >>>>> you want an error message here anyway? >>>> >>>> I was under the impression this is an error message, but it might not be >>>> so ? Maybe the wording is incorrect ? >>> >>> Now that I re-read it, "aborting" is incorrect, yes. >>> >>> So how should we proceed? This is an error message that can never be >>> shown (like the code is now) but breaks debug UART. >>> >>> I'd say we can drop it altogether. It might only be interesint if (in >>> the future) that code would get called from somewhere else (i.e. later, >>> after console initialization). >>> >>> Re-reading spl_gen5.c, there are some 'debug' calls before the debug >>> uart is initialized which probably would need to be removed as well, but >>> that's a different story... >> >> How come those don't hang the system then ? > > I just haven't enabled debug output in spl_gen5.c, yet. I guess they would > hang > the system when enabling them. > > While it would be easy to remove these debug statements, to be future-proof > it would of course make sense to make the debug UART robust against this. > > But given the problems with Rockchip ns16550, we would need a dedicated > debug UART for socfpga to solve this. And that would probably mean code > duplication.
What is the problem with Rockchip ? I don't want various SoCs blocking others. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
