[coreboot] locking...

ron minnich rminnich at gmail.com
Fri Jun 19 18:35:58 CEST 2009

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Myles Watson<mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:

> Another option would be to only let the BSP print messages by default.  That
> would clean up most people's logs most of the time.

yes, that is why I did that struct-based stack in my v3 SMP startup.
The struct formed the base of the AP stack. We could put a simple
print buffer in there and require that the BSP print out AP boot
messages. This would be a bit better than trying to resolve this
locking issue. I never got this done, I only got the "AP post code"
working. But overall I think my SMP startup prototype was much cleaner
than what is in v2 today.

I don't think we want to put locks in printk. If an AP gets part way
up, takes the lock, and fails, everyone is going to stick on that
lock. Not fun.

We have made a decision that the BSP is always assumed to work. Any
strategy should be build around this assumption, and the further
assumption that we ought to contain the AP so that it can not prevent
the BSP from doing its job.


More information about the coreboot mailing list