Good, I can understand the need to maintain compatibility until we get
ride of SERIAL_PORT_DFNS.
- kumar
On Jan 20, 2005, at 1:38 PM, Russell King wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:06:55PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Russell,
>
> I think this all makes sense to me.� I'm just wondering why we would
> have a platform device register in a system for 'legacy ISA' when we
> know the system doesnt have any ports that will fit the category.
>
> As you show in example #2 you have
>
> .../devices/platform/serial82500
> .../devices/platform/serial8250
>
> why have the 'serial8250' if you know your system doesnt have any
ports
> that will exist there?
In this case, it is a placeholder, and needs to be there if you're
using
power management.
For instance, you may use setserial on /dev/ttyS2 to reconfigure it
to an address where you know a serial port is.� Without the
"serial8250"
device, it isn't linked into the device model, and therefore doesn't
receive any power management notifications.
Once the SERIAL_PORT_DFNS are gone, and we have a more modern interface
than setserial for setting up random ports, this "serial8250" device
will vanish.
While we're here, you've reminded me about an annoying point about
platform device naming...
Greg - the name is constructed from "name" + "id num" thusly:
������� serial8250
������� serial82500
������� serial82501
������� serial82502
When "name" ends in a number, it gets rather confusing.� Can we have
an optional delimiter in there when we append the ID number, maybe
something like a '.' or ':' ?
--
Russell King
�Linux kernel��� 2.6 ARM Linux�� - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
�maintainer of:� 2.6 PCMCIA����� - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
���������������� 2.6 Serial core
-
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/
