On Feb 28, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Dan Malek wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2007, at 1:00 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> I would much rather see these devices moved to a different minor >> range. > > No. We just did that all too recently, and > i don't know why the minors didn't get > allocated properly. I don't want to have to > update all of our embedded software distributions > just because someone doesn't like minor > numbers that aren't causing trouble. > If we allocate unique spaces for all of the > possible UART variations, there isn't going > to be enough space. > > Just allocate the four slots and we'll deal with > anything above this in custom products. Using > more than four of these processor resources > as UARTs isn't likely to happen because there > won't be anything left for the interesting > communication ports.
Why don't we allocate the 2nd group of four as well, just at a new location. They'll be discontinuous, but at least we'll have support for all 8. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
