From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jdzheng@broadcom.com (Jiandong Zheng) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 16:14:06 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch In-Reply-To: <20120507230016.GA19320@windriver.com> References: <4FA823C4.1070109@broadcom.com> <4FA84396.7090808@broadcom.com> <20120507230016.GA19320@windriver.com> Message-ID: <4FA8573E.4090700@broadcom.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/05/12 16:00, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > [Re: [PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch] On 07/05/2012 (Mon 14:50) Jiandong Zheng wrote: > >> On 5/7/2012 2:39 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote: >>> Do things work if you simply do a partial revert of 888073d41 ? >>> >>> Meaning: >>> >>> -static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uartA", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL); >>> -static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartB", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL); >>> +static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartA, "uarta", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTA, {IRQ_UARTA}, NULL); >>> +static AMBA_APB_DEVICE(uartB, "uartb", 0, MM_ADDR_IO_UARTB, {IRQ_UARTB}, NULL); >>> >>> The original error messages led me to believe it was two errors; >>> i.e. (1) the wrong # of args error, and (2) the "a" vs. "A" error. But >>> I think Olof was right on his 1st instinct, that it was just the >>> single error, and the a<---> A thing was a side effect. >>> >>> In which case the above should just work, and it will also keep >>> the naming consistent with what it was before any of these >>> commits. >> Yes. Either way works. Just in original code, the name uartA and >> the name string "uarta" looks confusing and easy to get it wrong. > Agreed, as it confused me as well. But I don't want to break any > existing userspace. So if people expect the name "uarta" and the > name "uartb" then we really should go with that. But I have no > insight into the use case or userspace. So I leave that part of > the input up to you. I don't see user space has direct usage of these strings and the console runs fine so that it should be safe. Thanks, JD > > Thanks, > Paul. > >> Thanks, >> JD >>> Paul. >>> -- >>> >>