On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:09 -0700 "Mark A. Greer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:55:36PM -0500, Hugo Villeneuve wrote: > > 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? > > I'll remove setting the flag to 0 but that doesn't really help since > serial8250_register_port() will fail on uart1 and, IIRC, stop there. > > I'm not saying there isn't a bug, I'm just saying we're swapping one > bug for another so I'm going back to the original bug. Sorry but having /dev/ttyS1 for UART2 may not be ideal, but it is not a bug. > What happens if you leave uart1 enabled on you board? I don't think it will explode :) ...but this is not right. Hugo V. > > > 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. > > If/when my patches are enabled, that data will be pointed to by > soc_info pointer so you can change it in your board before calling > davinci_serial_init(). > > Mark > -- _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
