On Thursday 19 November 2009, Alon Ziv wrote: > On Monday, November 16, 2009, Arnd wrote: > > > - { .type = "serial", .compatible = "ns16550", .data = (void > *)PORT_16550, }, > > > + { .type = "serial", .compatible = "ns16550", .data = (void > *)PORT_16550A, }, > > > > Does not seem logical. If the device claims compatibility with > ns16550, we should > > not automatically assume it's an ns16550a. Why not add another line > for > > > > Unfortunately, there is no way to change what the device claims--it's > encoded into the OpenFirmware tree by the EDK tools. > And, in any case, the device is actually not lying: it is compatible > with NS16550--just with a non-buggy one. Unfortunately the kernel > driver for 8250-class UARTs makes the conservative choice to assume any > 16550 is one of the (early, buggy) revisions where the FIFO was > non-functional; any 16550 with working UART is classed as a 16550A.
In that case, add another entry for the device encoded in the firmware itself. The ns16550 entry should be the second one after a more specific one telling which device it is exactly. Arnd <>< _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev