On May 13 2009, at 01:18, Alan Cox was caught saying:
> > 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.
I looked in MAINTAINERS and 8250 is listed as unmaintained. :)
> > 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 ?
The console is not in high speed mode when we suspend. The original
commit (b5b82df6) just assumes that if it is a NATSEMI device, we
should set it to high speed mode at resume w/o checking if that
was the mode we were in when we suspended.
~Deepak
--
In the end, they will not say, "those were dark times," they will ask
"why were their poets silent?" - Bertold Brecht
--
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
