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 18BD1DDE3E for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:50:16 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070403.225006.119275067.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: <1175663999.2932.8.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> References: <20070404022544.59b022a6@the-village.bc.nu> <17939.10130.687893.167511@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1175663999.2932.8.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, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: David Woodhouse Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:19:59 -0400 > I don't see why that 'should' be the case. Certainly it _isn't_ the case > on most supported platforms -- we have separate device numbers, and > names, for most types of ports. There's only one or two drivers which > abuse ttySn for anything other than 8250 ports. sunsu, sunzilog, pmac_zilog, sunsab, etc. The list is longer than you think. In fact the convention is very well established.