From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754280Ab0JGVr4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:47:56 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:45856 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753993Ab0JGVrz (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:47:55 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6129"; a="57100461" Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: DCC(JTAG) serial and console emulation support From: Daniel Walker To: Greg KH Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Hyok S. Choi" , Tony Lindgren , Jeff Ohlstein , Ben Dooks , Alan Cox , Kukjin Kim , Mike Frysinger , Feng Tang , Tobias Klauser , Jason Wessel , Philippe Langlais In-Reply-To: <20101007211513.GB26660@suse.de> References: <1286476616-3373-1-git-send-email-dwalker@codeaurora.org> <20101007215019.17b4a34a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1286483766.23836.39.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20101007220538.2294a7e4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1286484678.23836.49.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20101007211513.GB26660@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:47:18 -0700 Message-ID: <1286488038.23836.101.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:15 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 01:51:18PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > Your making too many assumptions .. You might be able to modify the > > kernel, and not the userspace. So you couldn't tweak the device > > creation .. It's much easier in the server world .. > > You're saying it's easier to replace an embedded kernel than a userspace > file on an embedded system? Heh, that's funny. I'm saying it _can_ happen that it's easier to replace the kernel.. I'm not saying it's always the case. We're talking about debugging situations in an embedded environment which don't always follow a normal path. > > > We've said no over a period of about ten years to a lot of attempts to > > > just borrow the ttyS0 range. If we'd said yes it would have been a > > > complete mess by now. > > > > > > So the answer is no. > > > > Nothing can be unilateral, there's always room for exceptions. You > > should say something more like "it's possible, but unlikely". > > Hm, how about this, as the TTY and serial driver[1] maintainer, I will > not accept this kind of patch at all. > > Is that final enough for you? So you don't like it, that's fair enough .. I wonder what other maintainers I can send this too ;) Can you be more specific about your objections .. The discussion over the ttyS* thing is still happening. I'm waiting for Hyok to give a good reason for why he wrote that part of it. I can imagine good reasons for why that part would exist, which is what I'm discussing with Alan and Mike. Daniel -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.