> Hmm. I already applied this, but then after looking closer, I undid that.
> Why? It looks buggy:
I'm a bit suprised that as tty and serial maintainer this is the first
time I see the patch.
> Isn't that second test wrong? Should it not be
>
> if ((up->capabilities & UART_NATSEMI) &&
> (console_suspend_enabled || !uart_console(&up->port)) {
>
> instead?
The patch seems totally bogus anyway. If the console was in a high speed
mode it should be resumed in a high speed mode. What are the actual
details here.
Surely if my console is at 230Kbits/sec then resuming it at a totally
different speed is going to break things for people even if it happens to
help XO debug ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
