On Monday 21 January 2008, you wrote: > The codebase doesn't seem to be prepared for multiple serial ports in > the first place (I only find TTYS0_*).
OK. > As my initial query > (http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2008-January/029192.html) Right. That would have been the thread. Sorry. > As you can see, my patch doesn't pretend that the serial port is the > console, so a "you can find the console $here" record can be added without > conflicts. That new record could then refer to the serial port as specified > here, in case the console is on serial. > > > The questions are: > > 1. of what type is the active console? > > a) VGA-compatible > > b) 8250-compatible > > c) ... > Once we do that, the serial record could be extended by that > information. Given that we have a size field in the record, that can > even be done in a compatible way, or not? Absolutely. This is what I propose. Rename the record LB_TAG_CONSOLE, add a type field that is currently always 1, meaning 8250-compatible, I/O-mapped serial. Also an interrupt field would be nice, with a default "none" value. > This patch is updated against latest svn, and provides an alternative in > case TTYS0_BASE isn't defined (see the #ifdef). No more mocking about TTYS0 from my side. Do you want to make the other changes or shall I? Torsten -- coreboot mailing list coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
