On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:47:02PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > [PATCH] Allow ns16550.c to get base baud from rs_table instead of BAUD_BASE > > REPOST: fixed formating problems in original patch > > Modifies serial_init to get base baud rate from the rs_table entry instead > of BAUD_BASE. Will default back to BAUD_BASE if base_baud is not set. > > This patch eliminates duplication between the SERIAL_PORT_DFNS macro and > BAUD_BASE. Without the patch, if a port set the baud rate in > SERIAL_PORT_DFNS, but did not update BASE_BAUD, the BASE_BAUD value > would still be used. > > Rather; serial_init() should look first in SERIAL_PORT_DFNS and use > BASE_BAUD as a backup. > > Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely at gdcanada.com>
With everything in-tree, this is fine as baud_base is always set to BASE_BAUD, but I'm wondering why this was done. Did you do a port and not follow on this? It looks like today you could get away without defining BASE_BAUD correctly (8250_early uses and needs this to be correct, but I don't think this is frequently used, yet). But I'm not sure what we gain here. Thanks. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
