From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E950DDE43 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 05:30:35 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200708052357.32650.arnd@arndb.de> References: <200708052357.32650.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1288ff079974aa806119584018bab973@kernel.crashing.org> From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: 8250.c::autoconfig() fails loopback test on MPC824[15] Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 21:29:55 +0200 To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Jon Loeliger , Guennadi Liakhovetski , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Maybe the best solution would be for 824[15] to not claim compatibility > with 8250 at all then. Or at least it should have a more specific entry for this "special" 16x50 UART, and that one should be probed first. > If the device tree contains an entry that matches > what the generic driver looks for, it better be something that can > be handled by that driver. Pretty much; you can't make this rule too strict though, if a device mostly works with the generic driver, you can claim compatibility with it -- keep in mind that that can come back to bite you though, like in this case. The advantages do outweigh the disadvantages sometimes, it's all a tradeoff; avoid it if possible. Segher