On Friday 01 July 2022 09:21:34 Stefan Roese wrote:
On 23.06.22 14:13, Pali Rohár wrote:
Commit d293759d55cc ("serial: ns16550: Add support for SPL_DEBUG_UART_BASE") fixed support for setting correct early debug UART base address in SPL.
But after this commit, output from Marvell A385 BootROM is truncated or lost and not fully present on serial console.
Debugging this issue showed that BootROM just put bytes into UART HW output buffer and does not wait until UART HW transmit all characters. U-Boot ns16550 early debug is initialized very early and during its initialization is resetting UART HW and flushing remaining transmit buffer (which still contains BootROM output).
Fix this issue by waiting in init function prior resetting UART HW until TxEmpty bit in UART Line Status Register is set. TxEmpty is set when all remaining bytes from HW buffer are transmitted.
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org
Just checking, do you need a "Fixes" tag as well here?
Well, ns16550_init() function already contains that waiting for UART_LSR_TEMT bit. This was introduced in following commit years ago: https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/commit/cb55b3320014b7f6014416c556fe50...
So probably the "fixes" tag could contain commit which introduced _debug_uart_init() function. It was in this commit years ago: https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/commit/21d004368fc8a4da07147c58dfe9a4...
Support for SPL_DEBUG_UART_BASE in my recent commit just caused to hit issue that in _debug_uart_init() is missing waiting until TxEmpty.
drivers/serial/ns16550.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/serial/ns16550.c b/drivers/serial/ns16550.c index 78bfe6281ce3..13418004e2b0 100644 --- a/drivers/serial/ns16550.c +++ b/drivers/serial/ns16550.c @@ -328,6 +328,8 @@ static inline void _debug_uart_init(void) struct ns16550 *com_port = (struct ns16550 *)CONFIG_VAL(DEBUG_UART_BASE); int baud_divisor;
- while (!(serial_din(&com_port->lsr) & UART_LSR_TEMT));
I personally prefer the ";" in a separate line instead. Not sure what the official coding style mentions to such constructs.
I have no problem with this change. If you prefer it, feel free to move ";" to next separate line.
Anyways:
Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de
Thanks, Stefan