On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:41:53 -0800 "Vitaly Wool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0300 "Vitaly Wool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hmm, why? I can't think of a platform where one 8250-compatible UART is > > > problematic and another isn't :) > > > > > > > Is it not possible that the same kernel package can be installed on systems > > which do and don't need this feature? If so, we don't want to force the > > provider of that package to create two packages. > > > > That, plus the chances of the package creator actually knowing about this > > option aren't great. > > > > Generally, if it can be done at runtime it is better to do so, no? > > Okay, yes, I see your point. The same kernel might actually be > supporting several machines. > > But having that as a config option doesn't look too attractive to me. > What about adding a new flag to plat_serial 8250 stuff instead? plat_serial8250_port.flags? Dunno, I'm unfamiliar with it. That seems to be how the share_irqs option is handled. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
