From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Stigge Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] serial/8250: Adjusting FIFO parameters for LPC32xx Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 13:37:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4FC21214.7060804@antcom.de> References: <1338048678-23991-1-git-send-email-stigge@antcom.de> <201205270232.58253.arnd@arndb.de> <4FC1EEA7.2060109@antcom.de> <201205271023.16742.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from antcom.de ([188.40.178.216]:58111 "EHLO chuck.antcom.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751024Ab2E0LiD (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2012 07:38:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201205271023.16742.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: alan@linux.intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kevin.wells@nxp.com, srinivas.bakki@nxp.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hi, On 27/05/12 12:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/of_serial.c >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/of_serial.c >> @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ static struct of_device_id __devinitdata of_platform_serial_table[] = { >> { .compatible = "ns16450", .data = (void *)PORT_16450, }, >> { .compatible = "ns16550a", .data = (void *)PORT_16550A, }, >> { .compatible = "ns16550", .data = (void *)PORT_16550, }, >> + { .compatible = "ns16654", .data = (void *)PORT_16654, }, >> { .compatible = "ns16750", .data = (void *)PORT_16750, }, >> { .compatible = "ns16850", .data = (void *)PORT_16850, }, >> { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-uart", .data = (void *)PORT_TEGRA, }, >> >> Wondering if it should rather be .compatible = "st16654"? >> Will prepare a patch with adjustment of Documentation/.../of-serial.txt when >> we agree on sth. > > I think st16654 would be better than ns16654 here, yes. OK, will provide a patch accordingly. > Actually some of the other entries are wrong, too. The ns8250 entry should > be i8250, and I guess the 16750 and 16850 were also not made by national. But maybe we should keep the existing compatible strings because existing boards/bootloaders are providing them already? Roland From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: stigge@antcom.de (Roland Stigge) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 13:37:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC] serial/8250: Adjusting FIFO parameters for LPC32xx In-Reply-To: <201205271023.16742.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1338048678-23991-1-git-send-email-stigge@antcom.de> <201205270232.58253.arnd@arndb.de> <4FC1EEA7.2060109@antcom.de> <201205271023.16742.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <4FC21214.7060804@antcom.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On 27/05/12 12:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/of_serial.c >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/of_serial.c >> @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ static struct of_device_id __devinitdata of_platform_serial_table[] = { >> { .compatible = "ns16450", .data = (void *)PORT_16450, }, >> { .compatible = "ns16550a", .data = (void *)PORT_16550A, }, >> { .compatible = "ns16550", .data = (void *)PORT_16550, }, >> + { .compatible = "ns16654", .data = (void *)PORT_16654, }, >> { .compatible = "ns16750", .data = (void *)PORT_16750, }, >> { .compatible = "ns16850", .data = (void *)PORT_16850, }, >> { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-uart", .data = (void *)PORT_TEGRA, }, >> >> Wondering if it should rather be .compatible = "st16654"? >> Will prepare a patch with adjustment of Documentation/.../of-serial.txt when >> we agree on sth. > > I think st16654 would be better than ns16654 here, yes. OK, will provide a patch accordingly. > Actually some of the other entries are wrong, too. The ns8250 entry should > be i8250, and I guess the 16750 and 16850 were also not made by national. But maybe we should keep the existing compatible strings because existing boards/bootloaders are providing them already? Roland