On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > Am 2020-02-20 18:46, schrieb Michael Walle: > > If a driver exposes early consoles with EARLYCON_DECLARE() and > > OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(), pefer the non-OF variant if the user specifies it > > by > > earlycon=<driver>,<options> > > > > The rationale behind this is that some drivers register multiple setup > > functions under the same driver name. Eg. > > > > OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(lpuart, "fsl,vf610-lpuart", > > lpuart_early_console_setup); > > OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(lpuart32, "fsl,ls1021a-lpuart", > > lpuart32_early_console_setup); > > OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(lpuart32, "fsl,imx7ulp-lpuart", > > lpuart32_imx_early_console_setup); > > EARLYCON_DECLARE(lpuart, lpuart_early_console_setup); > > EARLYCON_DECLARE(lpuart32, lpuart32_early_console_setup); > > > > It depends on the order of the entries which console_setup() actually > > gets called. To make things worse, I guess it also depends on the > > compiler how these are ordered. Thus always prefer the > > EARLYCON_DECLARE() > > ones. > > Do you have an opinon on this proposal? It's only been a week, please give me a chance to catch up on serial patches... thanks, greg k-h
