Hello.
David Woodhouse wrote:
>>Given the existence of the boards, it looks correct to do this.
>>However, I wonder if it was correct for the MV64660 to claim
>>compatibily witn ns16550 if the programming model is not exactly
>>the same. The official OF serial port bindings don't mention the
>>reg-shift property, so it maybe would have been better to have
I'd preferred "reg-stride" or "reg-size" but see below...
>>a different value for the "compatible" property, in order not
>>to confuse existing operating systems that implement the standard.
> Ok, how about 'sparse16550'? Otherwise identical to ns16550, but with
Erm, wouldn't it be *too* generic approach? I'd suggest to name the
device with its own name and make of_serial.c recognize it and register with
8250.c as needed.
> the reg-shift property. I'll send a patch shortly, and I'll reorder the
> match table -- if something claims compatibility with both 8250 and
> 16550, shouldn't we drive it as the latter?
Certainly. BTW, was there really "ns8250" -- 8250 is Intel's chip?
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
