From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Timur Tabi <b04825@freescale.com>
Cc: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: warnings from drivers/tty/ehv_bytechan.c
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:25:55 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F481C83.4060206@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F480BE8.9080606@freescale.com>
On 02/24/2012 04:15 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>>>> That's the simplest approach, for use. The TTY portion of the driver can
>>>> be used as a module. Is there any real value in loading a TTY driver as a
>>>> module?
>
>> Depends on the hardware it supports :)
>>
>>>> In this case, the console support for byte channels would not be
>>>> available.
>
>> Then it doesn't make sense, right?
>
> I guess that's my question. Is there a real use case for having console
> output go to the serial port, and TTY go to a byte channel?
Sure -- you could be using the byte channel for inter-partition
communication, or just not have enough serial ports for all of this
partition's needs.
It looks like the usual pattern is to have a separate kconfig for the
console part, and have that be a bool that depends on the tristate tty
driver being "y".
> Even if you
> wanted to do that, I supposed you don't need to load the byte channel
> driver as a module to get that behavior.
Right, though that could be said about all (most?) modules.
Probably not that important in this particular case, though. I can see
people wanting to use byte channel but not caring about console, and I
can see people wanting to build a generic kernel that supports byte
channels, but I don't think there's much overlap between the two.
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-24 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-19 20:23 warnings from drivers/tty/ehv_bytechan.c Stephen Rothwell
2012-02-20 13:24 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
2012-02-24 21:50 ` gregkh
2012-02-24 22:00 ` Timur Tabi
2012-02-24 22:06 ` gregkh
2012-02-24 22:15 ` Timur Tabi
2012-02-24 22:19 ` gregkh
2012-02-24 23:25 ` Scott Wood [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-02-19 20:07 Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F481C83.4060206@freescale.com \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=b04825@freescale.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).