On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 14:10 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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 > 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 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? Can we add properties to indicate the common high-speed modes too? The Natsemi baud-base thing could be autodetected by 8250.c if you'd let it, but the SMSC trick just has to be set as a UPF_MAGIC_MULTIPLIER flag. -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
