From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from imap.sh.mvista.com (unknown [63.81.120.155]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95FB1DE1A8 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2007 03:05:25 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <468FC849.20801@ru.mvista.com> Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:07:21 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle reg-shift property for of_serial ports References: <1183784308.3066.16.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <200707071410.14998.arnd@arndb.de> <1183827083.3066.64.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1183827083.3066.64.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, Arnd Bergmann List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello. David Woodhouse wrote: >>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 I'd preferred "reg-stride" or "reg-size" but see below... >>a different value for the "compatible" property, in order not >>to confuse existing operating systems that implement the standard. > Ok, how about 'sparse16550'? Otherwise identical to ns16550, but with Erm, wouldn't it be *too* generic approach? I'd suggest to name the device with its own name and make of_serial.c recognize it and register with 8250.c as needed. > the reg-shift property. I'll send a patch shortly, and I'll reorder the > match table -- if something claims compatibility with both 8250 and > 16550, shouldn't we drive it as the latter? Certainly. BTW, was there really "ns8250" -- 8250 is Intel's chip? WBR, Sergei