Re: uart_match_port() question

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:30 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:21:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Hi Russel, would you accept a patch like that:

My deepest appologies ! :)

> s/l,/l&/
> 
> > Index: linux-work/drivers/serial/serial_core.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-work.orig/drivers/serial/serial_core.c	2005-11-14 20:32:16.000000000 +1100
> > +++ linux-work/drivers/serial/serial_core.c	2005-11-27 11:13:54.000000000 +1100
> > @@ -2307,7 +2307,8 @@
> >  		return (port1->iobase == port2->iobase) &&
> >  		       (port1->hub6   == port2->hub6);
> >  	case UPIO_MEM:
> > -		return (port1->membase == port2->membase);
> > +		return (port1->membase == port2->membase) ||
> > +			(port1->mapbase && port1->mapbase == port2->mapbase);
> >  	}
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> 
> I don't think so.  (see below)

Heh, Ok.

> Looking at this deeper, I think we should _only_ use mapbase in this
> case

Totally agreed.

> .  membase is really a indeterminant cookie which bears no real
> relationship to whether two ports are identical - in fact, if we are
> going to compare two of these cookies, I think arch code should be
> involved.
> 
> So how about:
> 
> -             return (port1->membase == port2->membase);
> +             return (port1->mapbase == port2->mapbase);

Yup, indeed. I did it the above way in case you had good reasons of
comparing membase too, but indeed, comparing mapbase only makes the most
sense.

I'll send a proper patch tomorrow.

Ben.