Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The interrupts are only claimed when the port is
> actually opened, so if
> only one port was open, you'll only see one
> appearing in /proc/interrupts.
Get it.
Thanks so much,
Sam
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:12:01AM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
> Still one puzzle related serial port. That's interrupt itself. I
> enabled two serial ports attached two different interrupt levels
> like 9/10 with disable interrupt shared. How come only one appeared
> in /proc/interrupts? What could
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but it's not. We need PPC folk to fix their
> SERIAL_PORT_DFNS and remove obsolete stuff like
> RS_TABLE_SIZE.
Hope Mark could take care this change. I have no
sandpoint board at hand:-)
I removed RS_TABLE_SIZE on my target successfully
and happened to
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 10:11:36PM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
> Well, I use a sandpoint-based board. Not the same as
> the reference one. There are two serial ports on the
> board and I enabled them both with IRQ9/10.
> In addition, No 8259 on this board.
>
> Pls don't apply this patch:-)
Indeed I
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 10:11:36PM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
Well, I use a sandpoint-based board. Not the same as
the reference one. There are two serial ports on the
board and I enabled them both with IRQ9/10.
In addition, No 8259 on this board.
Pls don't apply this patch:-)
Indeed I won't.
Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but it's not. We need PPC folk to fix their
SERIAL_PORT_DFNS and remove obsolete stuff like
RS_TABLE_SIZE.
Hope Mark could take care this change. I have no
sandpoint board at hand:-)
I removed RS_TABLE_SIZE on my target successfully
and happened to
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:12:01AM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
Still one puzzle related serial port. That's interrupt itself. I
enabled two serial ports attached two different interrupt levels
like 9/10 with disable interrupt shared. How come only one appeared
in /proc/interrupts? What could be on
Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The interrupts are only claimed when the port is
actually opened, so if
only one port was open, you'll only see one
appearing in /proc/interrupts.
Get it.
Thanks so much,
Sam
Start
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, in this case, the "whinging" resulted in
> finding a _real_ bug and locating why your ports
> weren't being found. So I guess it's
> good for something.
Indeed! The old kernel didn't have such an advantage.
> Can you mail me a diff of the changes
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:12:02AM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
> It turned out the conflict of uart init definition
> like MPC10X_UART0_IRQ in ../syslib/mpc10x_common.c
> and SERIAL_PORT_DFNS in ../platform/sandpoint.h. By
> now, only MPC10X_UART0_IRQ stuff is needed.
> SERIAL_PORT_DFNS should be
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> v. whining
>
> 1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched,
> protracted sound, as in pain,
>fear, supplication, or complaint.
> 2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
> 3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively
> high pitch:
Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
v. whining
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched,
protracted sound, as in pain,
fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively
high pitch: jet engines
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:12:02AM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
It turned out the conflict of uart init definition
like MPC10X_UART0_IRQ in ../syslib/mpc10x_common.c
and SERIAL_PORT_DFNS in ../platform/sandpoint.h. By
now, only MPC10X_UART0_IRQ stuff is needed.
SERIAL_PORT_DFNS should be
Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, in this case, the whinging resulted in
finding a _real_ bug and locating why your ports
weren't being found. So I guess it's
good for something.
Indeed! The old kernel didn't have such an advantage.
Can you mail me a diff of the changes you made
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 03:51:26AM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
> Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, if you merely lifted the later 8250.c and
> > put it into a previous kernel (which looks like the
> > case), there's other changes in addition which are
> > required.
>
> Good catch.
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, if you merely lifted the later 8250.c and
> put it into a previous kernel (which looks like the
> case), there's other changes in addition which are
> required.
Good catch. I tried 2.6.13-rc1 and the newest version
2.6.13-rc3 on the same
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:55:22PM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
> But seems not functional on PowerPC platform. I used
> a MPC8241 which has a DURT inside to try the git tree
> 8250.c and got the following result:
I don't know what's going on here - I don't know the PPC code
internals at all, or what
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:55:22PM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
But seems not functional on PowerPC platform. I used
a MPC8241 which has a DURT inside to try the git tree
8250.c and got the following result:
I don't know what's going on here - I don't know the PPC code
internals at all, or what
Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if you merely lifted the later 8250.c and
put it into a previous kernel (which looks like the
case), there's other changes in addition which are
required.
Good catch. I tried 2.6.13-rc1 and the newest version
2.6.13-rc3 on the same
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 03:51:26AM -0700, Sam Song wrote:
Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if you merely lifted the later 8250.c and
put it into a previous kernel (which looks like the
case), there's other changes in addition which are
required.
Good catch. I tried
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> It works for me on my platforms here, and everyone
> else on x86. I even had a situation where I had
> NR_UARTS set to 64 but only one registered... which
> also worked fine with no extraneous kernel messages.
But seems not functional on PowerPC
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:30:43AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > ISTR that having NR_UARTS bigger just produced different messages...
> >
> > Which were?
>
> Error code 22 instead of 28, as I recall. And as I said, the
> appearance of any (bogus error) message is a "recent" change.
> Two
> > The idea is _not_ to register them on boards that only have a
> > single RS232 connector. The fix was just having the 8250 code
> > understand that it should only register ports that are real.
>
> The tty code doesn't work like that. You must know how many ports
> you want right from the
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:32:12AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > ttyS0 at MMIO 0xfffb (irq = 46) is a ST16654
> > > serial8250 serial8250.0: unable to register port at index 1 (IO0 MEM0
> > > IRQ47): -28
> > > serial8250 serial8250.0: unable to register port at index 2
> > ttyS0 at MMIO 0xfffb (irq = 46) is a ST16654
> > serial8250 serial8250.0: unable to register port at index 1 (IO0 MEM0
> > IRQ47): -28
> > serial8250 serial8250.0: unable to register port at index 2 (IO0 MEM0
> > IRQ15): -28
>
> Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know.
>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:25:12AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:19:43 +0100
> > From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:22:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > and stop
> > > whining about certain non-errors (details in the
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:19:43 +0100
> From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:22:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > and stop
> > whining about certain non-errors (details in the patch comments).
>
> Please explain what the whining is (details were missing from
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:19:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:22:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > and stop
> > whining about certain non-errors (details in the patch comments).
>
> Please explain what the whining is (details were missing from the
> patch
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:22:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> and stop
> whining about certain non-errors (details in the patch comments).
Please explain what the whining is (details were missing from the
patch comments).
--
Russell King
Linux kernel2.6 ARM Linux -
Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
It works for me on my platforms here, and everyone
else on x86. I even had a situation where I had
NR_UARTS set to 64 but only one registered... which
also worked fine with no extraneous kernel messages.
But seems not functional on PowerPC
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:22:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
and stop
whining about certain non-errors (details in the patch comments).
Please explain what the whining is (details were missing from the
patch comments).
--
Russell King
Linux kernel2.6 ARM Linux -
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:19:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:22:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
and stop
whining about certain non-errors (details in the patch comments).
Please explain what the whining is (details were missing from the
patch comments).
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:19:43 +0100
From: Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:22:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
and stop
whining about certain non-errors (details in the patch comments).
Please explain what the whining is (details were missing from the
patch
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:25:12AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:19:43 +0100
From: Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:22:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
and stop
whining about certain non-errors (details in the patch comments).
ttyS0 at MMIO 0xfffb (irq = 46) is a ST16654
serial8250 serial8250.0: unable to register port at index 1 (IO0 MEM0
IRQ47): -28
serial8250 serial8250.0: unable to register port at index 2 (IO0 MEM0
IRQ15): -28
Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know.
-28 is
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:32:12AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ttyS0 at MMIO 0xfffb (irq = 46) is a ST16654
serial8250 serial8250.0: unable to register port at index 1 (IO0 MEM0
IRQ47): -28
serial8250 serial8250.0: unable to register port at index 2 (IO0 MEM0
The idea is _not_ to register them on boards that only have a
single RS232 connector. The fix was just having the 8250 code
understand that it should only register ports that are real.
The tty code doesn't work like that. You must know how many ports
you want right from the start.
That
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:30:43AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ISTR that having NR_UARTS bigger just produced different messages...
Which were?
Error code 22 instead of 28, as I recall. And as I said, the
appearance of any (bogus error) message is a recent change.
Two months ago,
Two small changes: make the IRQ name less generic, and stop
whining about certain non-errors (details in the patch comments).
Please merge.
- Dave
Make the 8250 UART driver register its IRQ using a label that's more
appropriate ... it's an 8250 UART, not one of dozens of other kind of
serial
Two small changes: make the IRQ name less generic, and stop
whining about certain non-errors (details in the patch comments).
Please merge.
- Dave
Make the 8250 UART driver register its IRQ using a label that's more
appropriate ... it's an 8250 UART, not one of dozens of other kind of
serial
40 matches
Mail list logo
