From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754593AbYIMHYU (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:24:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753845AbYIMHXt (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:23:49 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.177]:63654 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752893AbYIMHXr (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:23:47 -0400 Date: 13 Sep 2008 09:09:00 +0200 From: lirc@bartelmus.de (Christoph Bartelmus) To: jwilson@redhat.com Cc: j@jannau.net Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: stefan.bauer@cs.tu-chemnitz.de Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200809121224.34345.jwilson@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] lirc serial port receiver/transmitter device driver User-Agent: OpenXP/4.10.7369 (Linux) (i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+PludQLm8PtH9V/IFoDnjUv+eVDXrfRuJYKF/ G4VSob51WK/swnrmkozwHc1nZstZC/4XxE9mRzq8lqvKLPetNH cyxPDiZ6YNdaYbqApiBmldIRzkzUZEkIgCgTY/MI2s= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jarod, on 12 Sep 08 at 12:24, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Thursday 11 September 2008 15:49:25 Stefan Bauer wrote: >> Jarod Wilson wrote: >>>> Nothing in this function does anything to assure itself that the port >>>> actually exists and is the right kind of hardware. Maybe that can't >>>> really be done with this kind of device? >>> >>> We should probably try to make sure the port actually exists, but I don't >>> think there's a whole lot (if anything) we can do as far as verifying the >>> device itself. > I've borrowed the simple existence test from > drivers/serial/8250.c::autoconfig(), which tries a few reads and writes from > UART_IER. I think this is probably sufficient for verifying the port is > legit. > > Christoph B., you're definitely much more familiar with serial IR devices > than I am... Is there any sort of test you can think of that we could use to > try to verify the existence of an IR device hooked to the port? Or should we > be happy we at least know there's a port and just assume the IR device is > there? No, I can't think of anything else. OTOH there have never been real problems with this for the past 10 years... Christoph