From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Fuzzey Subject: Re: Serial: sc26xx device name Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:23:32 +0100 Message-ID: <4B07F7E4.1070207@gmail.com> References: <4B07F068.1090801@gmail.com> <20091121140911.0e7ef3fd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Reply-To: mfuzzey@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.78.26]:60224 "EHLO ey-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754642AbZKUOX3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:23:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091121140911.0e7ef3fd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: >> 2) How are device name conflicts handled? >> > > Badly - they should never occur but if someone didn't properly reserve > the namespace they can and then whoever forgot to reserve the namespace > loses. > Currently this can't happen because the sc26xx driver uses ttySC205 in contradiction to ttySC0 shown in devices.txt However if the driver were to be "fixed" to use the name registered in devices.txt a conflict could occur if a sc26xx chip were used on a superH system. The problem seems to be that while the major/minor numbers in devices.txt are unique (and the drivers are correctly using their registered numbers), the _names_ are not unique (at least in this case - I haven't checked for others).