On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this should be a module option/boot parameter, not a config-time
option.
NM, the recent changes in 8250 driver eliminated the need for this patch :)
Vitaly
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this should be a module option/boot parameter, not a config-time
option.
NM, the recent changes in 8250 driver eliminated the need for this patch :)
Vitaly
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:41:53 -0800
"Vitaly Wool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0300 "Vitaly Wool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmm, why? I can't think of a platform where one 8250-compatible UART is
> > >
On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0300 "Vitaly Wool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, why? I can't think of a platform where one 8250-compatible UART is
> problematic and another isn't :)
>
Is it not possible that the same kernel package can be
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0300 "Vitaly Wool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think this should be a module option/boot parameter, not a config-time
> > option.
> >
> >
> Hmm, why? I can't think of a platform where one 8250-compatible
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0300 Vitaly Wool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this should be a module option/boot parameter, not a config-time
option.
Hmm, why? I can't think of a platform where one 8250-compatible UART is
On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0300 Vitaly Wool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, why? I can't think of a platform where one 8250-compatible UART is
problematic and another isn't :)
Is it not possible that the same kernel package can be installed
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:41:53 -0800
Vitaly Wool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0300 Vitaly Wool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, why? I can't think of a platform where one 8250-compatible UART is
problematic and
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:43:17 +0300 Vitaly Wool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
^^^ Sorry.
> Hello Andrew,
>
> probing for UART_BUG_TXEN in 8250 driver leads to weird effects on some ARM
> boards (pnx4008 for instance). That is, the driver detects UART_BUG_TXEN
> (though it
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:43:17 +0300 Vitaly Wool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
^^^ Sorry.
Hello Andrew,
probing for UART_BUG_TXEN in 8250 driver leads to weird effects on some ARM
boards (pnx4008 for instance). That is, the driver detects UART_BUG_TXEN
(though it apparently
Hello Andrew,
probing for UART_BUG_TXEN in 8250 driver leads to weird effects on some ARM
boards (pnx4008 for instance). That is, the driver detects UART_BUG_TXEN
(though it apparently shouldn't) and it leads to symbol loss in console on
input (i. e. you input 'a' and you get nothing, then
Hello Andrew,
probing for UART_BUG_TXEN in 8250 driver leads to weird effects on some ARM
boards (pnx4008 for instance). That is, the driver detects UART_BUG_TXEN
(though it apparently shouldn't) and it leads to symbol loss in console on
input (i. e. you input 'a' and you get nothing, then
12 matches
Mail list logo