From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outbound2-dub-R.bigfish.com (outbound-dub.frontbridge.com [213.199.154.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.bigfish.com", Issuer "*.bigfish.com" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60AC4DDF22 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:36:28 +1100 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3] [POWERPC][V3] Xilinx: of_serial support for Xilinxuart 16550. Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:36:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: <200804030616.09825.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20080402232213.5D87515B8067@mail37-sin.bigfish.com><200804030134.11437.arnd@arndb.de> <200804030616.09825.arnd@arndb.de> From: "Stephen Neuendorffer" To: "Arnd Bergmann" , Message-Id: <20080403223622.66C28F4007D@mail128-dub.bigfish.com> Cc: John Linn List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , The device tree generator now reflects this. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: = linuxppc-dev-bounces+stephen.neuendorffer=3Dxilinx.com@ozlabs.org = [mailto:linuxppc-dev- > bounces+stephen.neuendorffer=3Dxilinx.com@ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of = Arnd Bergmann > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:16 PM > To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > Cc: John Linn > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [POWERPC][V3] Xilinx: of_serial support for = Xilinxuart 16550. >=20 > On Thursday 03 April 2008, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > =A0Since it is not really compatible with ns16550, shouldn't you = at least specify > > > =A0a different "compatible" property? That way, the driver won't = do incorrect > > > =A0accesses when you try to use an old driver with a device tree = that specifies > > > =A0one of these. > > > > Heh; we've gone back and forth on this issue. =A0The problem is that = we > > have a common case of ns16550 like devices that require a little bit > > of register address tweaking that spans a whole range of vendors (so > > adding a compatible match with each of those vendor's prefixes is > > probably non-scalable). =A0So, if "ns16550" is not a good idea, then > > what should be used? =A0"sparse16550" has been suggested more than = once. >=20 > After another IRC discussion between Grant, Segher and myself, we = concluded > that we don't need to invent a new "compatible" value, as only new = device > trees with old kernels will have a problem with this, and they don't = work > in the first place. >=20 > The devices will still have their specific "compatible" value, e.g. > "xlnx,plb-uart16550-1.00.c", followed by "ns16550", and possibly > "ns16450" and "i8250", although the last two do not have an effect > on Linux. >=20 > Josh, can you please forward all three patches in their latest = version? >=20 > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev