From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 04 May 2006 16:50:05 +0100 (BST) Received: from rtsoft2.corbina.net ([85.21.88.2]:60815 "HELO mail.dev.rtsoft.ru") by ftp.linux-mips.org with SMTP id S8133518AbWEDPty (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2006 16:49:54 +0100 Received: (qmail 27896 invoked from network); 4 May 2006 19:54:54 -0000 Received: from wasted.dev.rtsoft.ru (HELO ?192.168.1.248?) (192.168.1.248) by mail.dev.rtsoft.ru with SMTP; 4 May 2006 19:54:54 -0000 Message-ID: <445A225F.7090300@ru.mvista.com> Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 19:48:47 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov Organization: MontaVista Software Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rodolfo Giometti CC: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 8250_early console support for au1x00 References: <20060504134509.GE19913@gundam.enneenne.com> <445A114B.4040404@ru.mvista.com> <20060504152048.GG19913@gundam.enneenne.com> In-Reply-To: <20060504152048.GG19913@gundam.enneenne.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 11313 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Hello. Rodolfo Giometti wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:35:55PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> The following 2 fragments are kind of contradictory: > I see, but I decided to keep it different since the kernel message is: > Adding console on ttyS0 at MMIO 0x11100000 (options '115200') > and setting it as: > Adding console on ttyS0 at AU 0x11100000 (options '115200') > sounds bad to me. :) Yes. But the error msg emmitted by your patch would look this way, i.e. AU, not MMIO. No symmetry. :-) >>And, as I said. there's not much sense in calling iomap() on Alchemy UART, >>UPIO_IOREMAP flag wasn't really needed... > > > Mmm... to be «coherent» I think it should be done... Wouldn't hurt, just useless. So, I think no special checks are needed to avoid it. :-) > Ciao, > > Rodolfo WBR, Sergei