On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:55:41 -0700 "Mark A. Greer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 01:43:41PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > On Tuesday 31 March 2009, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > > The serial infrastructure is pretty limited WRT this (I have same > > > issue on da830 evm--I only want to use uart2). > > > > Couldn't you add some kind of "ignore this one" flag to that > > infrastructure, and just have DaVinci use it? > > > > This issue is hardly new to DaVinci chips, it's a longstanding > > annoyance. Happens on x86 too, ISTR ... > > Well, I wasted more of my life than I care to admit trying to better > understand (and tweak) the intricacies of the serial subsystem and > I'm not going to waste any more. > > If someone else wants to do this, they get a gold star. > > Hugo, I'm sorry but I'm going to back out most of your patch since > pretty much everyone (except you) agrees that misnaming uart2 is > unacceptable. I don't disagree, I just don't care, which is not the same :) First point: Before my patch, if you tried to enable UART0, UART1 and UART2, everything was fine. But if you tried to enable only UART0 and UART2, it failed miserably -> This is a BUG. Second point: If you remove what I did, how will you handle the case when I need to enable only UART0 and UART2? > If you don't care what uart2 is called, then why not > tweak the plat_serial8250_port data? Then it means that the serial platform data would need to go into the board setup code (board-sffsdr.c), and not into dm644x.c for example. If this is done like that, I don't mind, but it will need to be done for all the boards for consistency. Hugo V. _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
