>>> On 24.11.17 at 12:39, <bhupinder.tha...@linaro.org> wrote: > --- a/xen/drivers/char/ns16550.c > +++ b/xen/drivers/char/ns16550.c > @@ -1571,6 +1571,30 @@ DT_DEVICE_END > #endif /* HAS_DEVICE_TREE */ > > #if defined(CONFIG_ACPI) && defined(CONFIG_ARM) > +/* > + * APM X-Gene v1 and v2 UART hardware is an 16550 like device but has its > + * register aligned to 32-bit. In addition, the BIOS also encoded the > + * access width to be 8 bits. This function detects this errata condition. > + */ > +static bool xgene_8250_erratum_present(struct acpi_table_spcr *tb)
Is this really to be considered an erratum? From the description it doesn't sound like this couldn't have been a deliberate decision. IOW - does their behavior contradict any spec? (ACPI not providing information in field and access width looks suspicious too - GAS fields exist for both.) Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
