[PATCH] Handle reg-shift property for of_serial ports
segher at kernel.crashing.org
Sun Jul 8 08:12:09 EST 2007
>>> 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
>>> 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.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev