[coreboot] [PATCH] don't print too early on mcp55-based boards
stefan.reinauer at coresystems.de
Wed Nov 3 20:48:54 CET 2010
Sent from my mobile phone
On 03.11.2010, at 09:56, Ward Vandewege <ward at gnu.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
We could add a post code to the parameters of the die() function.
> What do you think?
> Ward Vandewege <ward at fsf.org>
> Free Software Foundation - Senior Systems Administrator
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
More information about the coreboot