From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from canuck.infradead.org (canuck.infradead.org [209.217.80.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848F1DE172 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2007 02:50:41 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle reg-shift property for of_serial ports From: David Woodhouse To: Arnd Bergmann In-Reply-To: <200707071410.14998.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1183784308.3066.16.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <200707071410.14998.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 12:51:23 -0400 Message-Id: <1183827083.3066.64.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 14:10 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Given the existence of the boards, it looks correct to do this. > However, I wonder if it was correct for the MV64660 to claim > compatibily witn ns16550 if the programming model is not exactly > the same. The official OF serial port bindings don't mention the > reg-shift property, so it maybe would have been better to have > a different value for the "compatible" property, in order not > to confuse existing operating systems that implement the standard. Ok, how about 'sparse16550'? Otherwise identical to ns16550, but with the reg-shift property. I'll send a patch shortly, and I'll reorder the match table -- if something claims compatibility with both 8250 and 16550, shouldn't we drive it as the latter? Can we add properties to indicate the common high-speed modes too? The Natsemi baud-base thing could be autodetected by 8250.c if you'd let it, but the SMSC trick just has to be set as a UPF_MAGIC_MULTIPLIER flag. -- dwmw2