>>>>> "David" == David H Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi, David> The 8250 is certainly the oldest driver - but it is also David> by far the most used. It is also the most heavily maintained, Yes, because there's so many more-or-less compatible variants of the hardware. Most drivers don't see a lot of development once they are past the initial development/testing.. David> There are complexities to the 8250 that proved to be difficult David> and troubling when I based my UartLite driver on it, Those David> problems were because the 8250driver suports so many 8250 David> variants with so many idiosyncracies. Exactly. Try to compare it to one of the "modern" drivers like atmel_serial.c - It's almost 3 times as big. >> Remove support? I don't remember anything about that. David> I may have misread something there - I thought your David> initial driver allowed stting the number of Uarts, and I David> beleive your current one does not. If I am wrong, then I David> think support for more Uarts needs to get added to the todo David> list. That is not something important to me. But it probably David> will be for others. There was a discussion about how many device nodes to register with lanana.org and hence how many devices to support. I went with 4 which seems to be pretty standard (E.G. virtex.c supports up to 4 8250s). If more is needed a bigger range can be requested with lanana.org. Again, let's see a real need before changing anything. David> Despite the fact hat you apear to run combined 16550/Uartlite David> implimentations, My expectation is that will be rare. A small David> savings in FPGA spare is rarely going to justify more complex David> hardware and software. Multiple port systems are mostly David> likely to be all one type or another. Almost all our designs use both. P.S.: Would it be possible to fix up your quoting? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
