>>> 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...
It is not the register size. "Register spacing" is the most common name I believe, but "register shift" is nicer for computer programs. >>> 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. Yes, name the device by its real name, *please*. >> 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? It should be "i8250" yes. Not that you'd ever find any anymore of course. And in many cases, it should be "pnpPNP,xxx" anyway. Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
