From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4CDDDFCA for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 22:12:44 +1000 (EST) From: Arnd Bergmann To: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle reg-shift property for of_serial ports Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 14:10:14 +0200 References: <1183784308.3066.16.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1183784308.3066.16.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Message-Id: <200707071410.14998.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Saturday 07 July 2007, David Woodhouse wrote: > > The MV64660 has reg-shift==2 for its otherwise 16550-compatible uarts. > While the bootwrapper copes with this, of_serial.c doesn't. (The udbg > code doesn't either, but I'll fix that later). > > Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann Given the existence of the boards, it looks correct to do this. However, I wonder if it was correct for the MV64660 to claim compatibily witn ns16550 if the programming model is not exactly the same. The official OF serial port bindings don't mention the reg-shift property, so it maybe would have been better to have a different value for the "compatible" property, in order not to confuse existing operating systems that implement the standard. Also, what about etherboot and yaboot? Do they handle this correctly? Arnd <><