From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:59:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:64251 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1491102Ab1FJN7f (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:59:35 +0200 Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2011 06:59:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,347,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="14794275" Received: from unknown (HELO bob.linux.org.uk) ([10.255.13.27]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2011 06:59:25 -0700 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:57:24 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Jamie Iles Cc: Ralf Baechle , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Marc St-Jean , Shane McDonald , Anoop P A Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: 8250: handle USR for DesignWare 8250 with correct accessors Message-ID: <20110610145724.1e0c0983@bob.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20110610075426.GM3711@pulham.picochip.com> References: <1307616525-22028-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <20110610035817.GA6740@linux-mips.org> <20110610075426.GM3711@pulham.picochip.com> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Organisation: Intel Corporation UK Ltd, registered no. 1134945 (England), Registered office Pipers Way, Swindon, SN3 1RJ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 30318 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: alan@linux.intel.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Return-Path: X-Keywords: X-UID: 9215 > I found this series from Alan > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-serial/msg03484.html) which looks > like it would do the job if we added the extra irq callback. Ideally > we just remove both of the UPIO_DWAPB and UPIO_DWAPB32 and let the > platform specify the ops. I've not yet had time to go back and revisit those patches and debug them so they actually work but as and when someone gets time I think it's the right basic path to follow, and the irq callback looks sensible too. Ultimately yes I'd also like to see all board specific ops banished from 8250.c