From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e35.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8628ADDF59 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:05:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m67B53YE012404 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 07:05:03 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m67B53fd171466 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:05:03 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m67B52dm019925 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:05:03 -0600 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 07:01:24 -0400 From: Josh Boyer To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [V2] powerpc: legacy_serial: reg-offset & shift aren't used Message-ID: <20080707070124.73ba794f@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1215413228.8970.106.camel@pasglop> References: <20080701175250.E0BA41CE804D@mail117-va3.bigfish.com> <1215413228.8970.106.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: dwg@au1.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, John Linn List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:47:08 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 10:52 -0700, John Linn wrote: > > The legacy serial driver does not work with an 8250 > > type UART that uses reg-offset and reg-shift. This > > change updates the driver so it doesn't find the UART > > when those properties are present on the UART in the > > device tree for soc devices. > > > > Signed-off-by: John Linn > > Acked-by: Grant Likely > > --- > > V2 > > > > Corrected logic to use "||" rather than "&&". > > I have some problems with this patch: > > - First if the properties are present but their value match the > register layout of a standard UART, we will bail out... not nice. Why would they be present in that case? > - Why don't we just implement support for the reg-shift and > offset instead ? Probably because the last time someone suggested that it spawned a lengthy debate about what reg-offset/shift were supposed to do. josh