On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > 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
> 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 loo
> Another option altogether would be to allow the device node to
> specify the linux specific serial port flags in a separate property,
> like "linux,uart-port-flags" that contains the same flags that
> setserial can set from user space. That would also be useful
> if you want to specify UPF_MAGIC_
On Sunday 05 August 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>
> > I supect it will have the same issue in the end, right?
>
> ...if you choose to use of_serial.c, yes, if you don't use it and just use
> legacy_serial.c, then you're fine.
But of_serial can be a loadable module, which means you still
So, like, the other day Guennadi Liakhovetski mumbled:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>
> ...if you choose to use of_serial.c, yes, if you don't use it and just use
> legacy_serial.c, then you're fine.
Ah, I see. OK.
> BTW, my offer still holds to see if we can build a single kernel
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> So, like, the other day Arnd Bergmann mumbled:
> > On Sunday 05 August 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > That would be a possibility, but that would mean all 8241/8245 have to
> > > adjust their .dts. Ok, there are not so many of them in the mainli
So, like, the other day Arnd Bergmann mumbled:
> On Sunday 05 August 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > That would be a possibility, but that would mean all 8241/8245 have to
> > adjust their .dts. Ok, there are not so many of them in the mainline now
> > (in fact, hardly any apart from links
On Sunday 05 August 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> That would be a possibility, but that would mean all 8241/8245 have to
> adjust their .dts. Ok, there are not so many of them in the mainline now
> (in fact, hardly any apart from linkstation:-)), still. Cannot we use
> something already a
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 05 August 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > I tried using of_serial.c on a (PPC) MPC8241 based system, which has a
> > "16650A" compatible double UART built into the SoC. Using of_serial.c
> > causes the ports to be autoconfigured, and th
On Sunday 05 August 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> I tried using of_serial.c on a (PPC) MPC8241 based system, which has a
> "16650A" compatible double UART built into the SoC. Using of_serial.c
> causes the ports to be autoconfigured, and this fails. The loopback test
> fails, because the
Hi,
I tried using of_serial.c on a (PPC) MPC8241 based system, which has a
"16650A" compatible double UART built into the SoC. Using of_serial.c
causes the ports to be autoconfigured, and this fails. The loopback test
fails, because the MSR register on 824[15] doesn't implement the
UART_MSR_DC
11 matches
Mail list logo
