On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:53 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Why would the numbers be prone to change, any more than they are
> already?
Because now 8250 ports can actually coexist with Zilog ports. Before my
fix, it was strictly one or the other.
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
David Woodhouse writes:
> Of course, the _numbers_ might change -- a given port might no longer be
> ttyS0 but ttyS1. But we're happy to overlook that one even though the
> effect on the user is identical, right?
Why would the numbers be prone to change, any more than they are
already?
-
To unsub
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 23:31 +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote
> > Is major 204 minor 192 already allocated?
>
> Of course. The reason it took so long to provide this patch after the
> 'pmac_zilog doesn't load' bug got reported was because I was waiting for
>
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:18:12 -0400, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe I should have sent "request" (not patch) mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] first?
>
> Well, that's what it says right underneath the line in devices.txt which
> says:
> DEVICE DRIVERS AUTHORS PLEASE REA
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 00:09 +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
>
> What I did is just send a patch includeing devices.txt changes to
> lkml, [EMAIL PROTECTED], and some others.
>
> Maybe I should have sent "request" (not patch) mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] first?
Well, that's what it says right underne
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:47:15 -0400, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is major 204 minor 192 already allocated?
>
> Of course. The reason it took so long to provide this patch after the
> 'pmac_zilog doesn't load' bug got reported was because I was waiting for
> the new allocation.
>
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 23:31 +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote
> Is major 204 minor 192 already allocated?
Of course. The reason it took so long to provide this patch after the
'pmac_zilog doesn't load' bug got reported was because I was waiting for
the new allocation.
> Few weeks ago, I sent a patch to
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:19:43 -0400, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL_PMACZILOG_TTYS
> +#define PMACZILOG_MAJOR TTY_MAJOR
> +#define PMACZILOG_MINOR 64
> +#define PMACZILOG_NAME "ttyS"
> +#else
> +#define PMACZILOG_MAJOR
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:48 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> David Woodhouse writes:
>
> > OK, how about a config option to preserve the old behaviour...
>
> Well, that's a start but it doesn't provide a migration path.
>
> Is it possible to have the pmac_zilog ports registered both with the
> new
David Woodhouse writes:
> OK, how about a config option to preserve the old behaviour...
Well, that's a start but it doesn't provide a migration path.
Is it possible to have the pmac_zilog ports registered both with the
new number and with the old number (assuming it's not already taken)?
That w
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 16:31 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> It seems Debian has both 8250 and pmac_zilog built in; not sure which
> one wins. Ubuntu has them both as modules and managed to get the
> right one (pmac_zilog) loaded on a colleague's powerbook.
So if you insert a PCMCIA card with an 8
11 matches
Mail list logo
