From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com (Paul Gortmaker) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:00:16 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: BCMRING: Fix UART declaration and clk dev name mismatch In-Reply-To: <4FA84396.7090808@broadcom.com> References: <4FA823C4.1070109@broadcom.com> <4FA84396.7090808@broadcom.com> Message-ID: <20120507230016.GA19320@windriver.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org [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. Thanks, Paul. > > Thanks, > JD > > > >Paul. > >-- > > > >