Hi Bin,
On 12 June 2017 at 19:10, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 12 June 2017 at 09:13, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
At present the U-Boot banner is only displayed on the serial console. If this is not visible to the user, the banner does not show. Some devices have a video display which can usefully display this information.
Add a banner which is printed after relocation only on non-serial devices if CONFIG_DISPLAY_BOARDINFO_LATE is defined.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Changes in v2:
- Reword function comment for console_announce_r() slighty
common/board_r.c | 1 + common/console.c | 15 +++++++++++---- include/console.h | 12 ++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/board_r.c b/common/board_r.c index 15977e4bca..ff11eba5d3 100644 --- a/common/board_r.c +++ b/common/board_r.c @@ -846,6 +846,7 @@ static init_fnc_t init_sequence_r[] = { #endif console_init_r, /* fully init console as a device */ #ifdef CONFIG_DISPLAY_BOARDINFO_LATE
console_announce_r, show_board_info,#endif #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MISC_INIT diff --git a/common/console.c b/common/console.c index 1232808df5..3fcd7ce66b 100644 --- a/common/console.c +++ b/common/console.c @@ -202,7 +202,6 @@ static void console_putc(int file, const char c) } }
-#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(PRE_CONSOLE_BUFFER)
Why removing this? Without PRE_CONSOLE_BUFFER, I doubt it works.
I want to be able to call the function below. It seems to work OK and it doesn't rely on that option.
See comments below.
static void console_puts_noserial(int file, const char *s) { int i; @@ -214,7 +213,6 @@ static void console_puts_noserial(int file, const char *s) dev->puts(dev, s); } } -#endif
static void console_puts(int file, const char *s) { @@ -248,13 +246,11 @@ static inline void console_putc(int file, const char c) stdio_devices[file]->putc(stdio_devices[file], c); }
-#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(PRE_CONSOLE_BUFFER) static inline void console_puts_noserial(int file, const char *s) { if (strcmp(stdio_devices[file]->name, "serial") != 0) stdio_devices[file]->puts(stdio_devices[file], s); } -#endif
static inline void console_puts(int file, const char *s) { @@ -699,6 +695,17 @@ static void console_update_silent(void) #endif }
+int console_announce_r(void) +{
char buf[DISPLAY_OPTIONS_BANNER_LENGTH];display_options_get_banner(false, buf, sizeof(buf));console_puts_noserial(stdout, buf);Then I think we should do something like this:
int console_announce_r(void) { #ifndef CONFIG_PRE_CONSOLE_BUFFER char buf[DISPLAY_OPTIONS_BANNER_LENGTH];
display_options_get_banner(false, buf, sizeof(buf)); console_puts_noserial(stdout, buf);#endif }
If we don't do this, there will be duplicated U-Boot version string shown on the screen if CONFIG_PRE_CONSOLE_BUFFER is defined.
I don't think so. This is a different thing. The pre-console buffer only exists until console_init_f(), i.e. very early in pre-relocation U-Boot. When console_init_f() is called the buffer is printed to the (serial) console.
My patch is all about what happens after relocation. By this time the pre-console buffer has been sent to the serial port. I want to display the version number on the screen, and this should not affect the pre-console buffer in any way.
return 0;+}
/* Called before relocation - use serial functions */ int console_init_f(void) { diff --git a/include/console.h b/include/console.h index 3d37f6a53b..cea29ed6dc 100644 --- a/include/console.h +++ b/include/console.h @@ -42,6 +42,18 @@ void console_record_reset(void); */ void console_record_reset_enable(void);
+/**
- console_announce_r() - print a U-Boot console on non-serial consoles
- When U-Boot starts up with a display it generally does not announce itself
- on the display. The banner is instead emitted on the UART before relocation.
- This function prints a banner on devices which (we assume) did not receive
- it before relocation.
- @return 0 (meaning no errors)
- */
+int console_announce_r(void);
/*
- CONSOLE multiplexing.
*/
And I see another (same) patch @ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/769426/ which got applied, but this one was sent later than the applied one. I am confused..
Another patch in this series caused a breakage using a long BUILD_TAG due to a bug in how the snprintf() calls were done. So I dropped two patches from that series and sent this series instead.
It wasn't noticed since I don't use BUILD_TAG and no tests were in place. It just happened that Stephen Warren has automated testing that caught it before it was pulled to mainline.
OK, thanks for the clarification.
Regards, Bin
Regards, Simon