On 2018-05-16 15:58:10 [+0300], Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > It will be too tricky and error prone to allow DMA operations on > > > kernel > > > console. > > > > Why is it tricky and error prone? I had it working… > > On OMAP only? Had you tested this on let's say Intel Cherrytrail where > DMA controller is a separate PCI device which needs to be handled > separately from UART IP. My point was simply to clarify if this entirely broken and requires backports or if this makes things more complicated and could be avoided. > > But I don't mind dropping the DMA on the kernel console because I > > doubt > > that we lose something here by disabling it. I would even imagine that > > it gets "simpler" (maybe what you tried to say by "error prone") to > > print something in the NMI case by writing directly to the FIFO > > register > > instead setting up a DMA transfer and so on. > > "error prone" mostly refers to patch 2 commit message. Here it seems I > need to put something like above to explain why DMA case tricky _as > well_. Yes, full context is helpful :) Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
