From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5573BDDE47 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:16:46 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070403.181645.68159458.davem@davemloft.net> To: dwmw2@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stop pmac_zilog from abusing 8250's device numbers. From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1175648051.10567.61.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> References: <1175644642.10567.31.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20070403221002.GA13210@cynthia.pants.nu> <1175648051.10567.61.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: David Woodhouse Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:54:10 -0400 > Yes, it would be theoretically possible to come up with a way to share > minor numbers so we can use 'ttyS0' for the first serial port regardless > of what type of port it is. We could take the arch-specific hack that > SPARC has and try to move it to generic code. But what's the point? The point is that it will work and the user will not be bothered with what kind of serial port they happen to have. A major number per serial chip type is incredibly stupid. I don't need to know anything about the inanrds of my computer to bring up the ethernet interface, me caveman me bringup eth0, me on network, caveman happy. The same should be true for serial ports. It's a serial port dammit, don't make it something else! In the case of multiple instances, ordering is a sperate issue from naming. You keep bringing up the ordering issue but it distracts away from the more important part which is the user having to know what kind of serial port they have. It's a serial port, and like a scsi disk or and ethernet interface, we should give it a consistent name.