> Maybe the best solution would be for 824[15] to not claim compatibility > with 8250 at all then.
Or at least it should have a more specific entry for this "special" 16x50 UART, and that one should be probed first. > If the device tree contains an entry that matches > what the generic driver looks for, it better be something that can > be handled by that driver. Pretty much; you can't make this rule too strict though, if a device mostly works with the generic driver, you can claim compatibility with it -- keep in mind that that can come back to bite you though, like in this case. The advantages do outweigh the disadvantages sometimes, it's all a tradeoff; avoid it if possible. Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
