On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 06:16 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 03 April 2008, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > Since it is not really compatible with ns16550, shouldn't you at least > > > specify > > > a different "compatible" property? That way, the driver won't do > > > incorrect > > > accesses when you try to use an old driver with a device tree that > > > specifies > > > one of these. > > > > Heh; we've gone back and forth on this issue. The problem is that we > > have a common case of ns16550 like devices that require a little bit > > of register address tweaking that spans a whole range of vendors (so > > adding a compatible match with each of those vendor's prefixes is > > probably non-scalable). So, if "ns16550" is not a good idea, then > > what should be used? "sparse16550" has been suggested more than once. > > After another IRC discussion between Grant, Segher and myself, we concluded > that we don't need to invent a new "compatible" value, as only new device > trees with old kernels will have a problem with this, and they don't work > in the first place. > > The devices will still have their specific "compatible" value, e.g. > "xlnx,plb-uart16550-1.00.c", followed by "ns16550", and possibly > "ns16450" and "i8250", although the last two do not have an effect > on Linux. > > Josh, can you please forward all three patches in their latest version? > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So is the discussion on reg-offset settled then? It seemed Paul and David had some issues with that, and I'd like to make sure everyone is agreed on that before I bring in patches 2 and 3. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
