Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:38:54 +0300, Sergei Shtylylov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The problem is not just only spin_lock_init. The parameters of
"console=" option (baudrate, etc.) are not passed for PCI UART.
sshtylyov> They are -- uart_add_one_port() calls console setup
sshtylyov> once more when registering PCI UART with serial code.
Yes, you are right. I missed the register_console call in
uart_add_one_port(). So your patch will fix the problem. But I
suppose the spinlock should be initialized in serial_core. How about
@@ -2233,7 +2233,7 @@ int uart_add_one_port(struct uart_driver
* If this port is a console, then the spinlock is already
- if (!uart_console(port))
+ if (!(uart_console(port) && (port->cons->flags & CON_ENABLED)))
uart_configure_port(drv, state, port);
I wouldn't object.
@@ -937,11 +942,6 @@ static int serial_txx9_console_setup(str
- * Temporary fix.
* Disable UART interrupts, set DTR and RTS high
* and set speed.
sshtylyov> Can you tell me, how this is supposed to work with TX49xx
sshtylyov> SOC UARTs? When that spinlock will be init'ed for the
sshtylyov> console port? uart_add_one_port() won't do it, and your
sshtylyov> added code below won't do it either, so I disagree with
sshtylyov> this change (though with "empty" spinlock it will no doubt
sshtylyov> work) since there's nothing to init.
The spinlock is initialized in uart_set_options() which is called
from console setup function.
I'm sorry, haven't dug that deep. :-)
Thought explicit spinlock init was really necessary there...