From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] 8250_pnp: register x86 COM ports at the conventional ttyS names Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:10:29 -0500 Message-ID: <4790EB95.203@zytor.com> References: <9MjWa-VI-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <9MjWb-VI-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <9MlEG-3Mx-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <9Mmra-56f-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <478E6C20.2030005@zytor.com> <478E946D.9040105@keyaccess.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:44483 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762071AbYARSUs (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:20:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <478E946D.9040105@keyaccess.nl> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Rene Herman Cc: 7eggert@gmx.de, Bjorn Helgaas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox Rene Herman wrote: > > The number of places expected to contain something sensible should I > believe first be verified at 0x410 -- the equipment word. Bits 11-9 > (0x0e00) should be the number of serial ports, 0 to 4 (so 5-7 is also a > sanity check) and if BIOSes can be expected to zero out the non-used > base-addresses (at 0x400, 0x402, 0x404, 0x406) that's another sanity > check. Don't know if they can though... > Probably not. However, the ports marked valid should be nonzero and aligned-8. -hpa