Andy Fleming wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Kim Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:43:46 -0400 >> Paul Gortmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Some boards that have external 16550 UARTs don't have a direct >>> tie between bi_busfreq and the clock used for the UARTs. Boards >>> that do have such a tie should set CFG_NS16550_CLK to be >>> get_bus_freq(0) -- which most of them do already. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Acked-by: Kim Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Applied, thanks > > Andy
What about the situation were both exist? The current scheme doesn't really allow for that, as it treats all "ns16550" devices the same. We have a board that uses both SOC UARTs on the 8548 and a DUART controller on the local bus. It used to work fine with the old u-boot fdt scheme, as the fixup was specific to the SOC UARTs. We made a local modification to our device tree and u-boot to work around this, but I don't know if it's a good solution to push a patch for. We simply added "fsl,soc-uart" to the compatibility list in the fdt for the SOC UARTs, and now have the u-boot uart clock-frequency fixup search for that rather than "ns16550". Does this seem like a reasonable solution to push a patch for? I'm not sure as it requires changes to all the device trees as well as u-boot. If it's not, then what would be a better solution? Thanks, Zach ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
