Prev: [PATCH] ieee802154: Fix oops during ieee802154_sock_ioctl
Next: regulator: Allow regulator-regulator supplies to be specified by name
From: H. Peter Anvin on 26 Apr 2010 11:00
On 04/26/2010 07:35 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> Wouldn't it be better to switch to, say, serial console here to avoid
>>> the NULL check in early_printk()?
>> This would be another possibility.
>> However, since the serial console was not explicitly selected, it would possibly
>> not be initialized. My understanding is that Peter had a problem with that.
>> One can argue that it would still be better to select the serial console in that case,
>> even though it might not be initialized. Actually, most likely it is (if it exists),
>> since the system must presumably have some means to communicate with the world.
>> I am pretty much open to either option, if that results in the patch being accepted.
>> Just let me know which way to go.
Yes, I really don't want to issue bytes to a serial port that isn't
known to be initialized; it could take a *very* long time even if the
port is actually present, and if the port *isn't* present it could hang
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/