c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Sat Jun 20 23:53:47 CEST 2009
On 20.06.2009 10:31, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> On 20.06.2009 2:57 Uhr, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> True, but our console requirements for both versions are pretty minimal
>> and I think we showed in v3 that a one-size-fits-all printk can work fine.
> It didn't, that's the point.. No locking,
True. I worked a lot on printk and the biggest reasons I didn't add
1. I have no SMP hardware (and I don't know if we support SMP Qemu)
2. I simply didn't think of it and I can't remember anyone demanded
locking for printk.
> and it destroyed output of
> i.e. a GDB interface by appending (CB) to each line. Plus, the ifdef
> mess is really not (much?) nicer to look at than the linker sets.
Fortunately, (CB) is default off. Back then, I argued against this
particular feature, but it was desired by some v3 developers (don't
exactly remember who). If there is no such demand anymore, we can drop
this piece of code.
More information about the coreboot