From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (e2.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e2.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11978DDF5A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:21:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m23JLBHs013231 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:21:11 -0500 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m23JLAnc119994 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:21:10 -0500 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m23JLAmo007892 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:21:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:21:07 -0600 From: Josh Boyer To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] [POWERPC] Ignore disabled serial ports Message-ID: <20080303132107.67200634@weaponx> In-Reply-To: <20080303190925.GA6735@loki.buserror.net> References: <20080301081600.74598ce4@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20080301081746.689a0a17@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <200803030443.43346.arnd@arndb.de> <20080302224317.15f259ca@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20080303190925.GA6735@loki.buserror.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, Arnd Bergmann List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:09:25 -0600 Scott Wood wrote: > On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 10:43:17PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:43:42 +0100 > > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > I wonder whether we should move the check for "used-by-rtas" into the > > > of_device_is_available function. I understand that used-by-rtas is > > > another way of expressing the idea that the kernel is not supposed to > > > access the specific device. In this case, the device is physically > > > present, but is not available to the OS. > > > > I'd rather not at the moment. My intention was to only look at the > > status property for now. I'd like to avoid this function growing into > > a huge switch statement for $random_firmware's way of flagging > > something as "don't touch". > > Better that than having the "huge" list of tests in every driver... Perhaps. This isn't set in stone. I'd rather get what's in the patch in-tree now and massage it as we go. Otherwise this bike shed will wind up being rainbow colored yet totally useless because it's a never-ending patch rework. josh