Bug in drivers/serial/of_serial.c?

[Stephen Neuendorffer]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+stephen=neuendorffer.name at lists.ozlabs.org
[mailto:linuxppc-dev-
> bounces+stephen=neuendorffer.name at lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Alon
Ziv
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:47 AM
> To: Arnd Bergmann; linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: RE: Bug in drivers/serial/of_serial.c?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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.

Definitely changing what is generated by EDK seems to make sense here...

Steve


This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.