On 13 March 2013 03:39, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 03:34:59AM +0400, Сергей Янович wrote: >> -------------------- >> * Non-8250 serial port support >> * >> PXA serial port support (SERIAL_PXA) [Y/n/?] y >> Console on PXA serial port (SERIAL_PXA_CONSOLE) [Y/n/?] y >> as /dev/ttySA[0-3] (SERIAL_PXA_TTYSA_NAME) [N/y/?] (NEW) > > Please make it sane for the single line it is on. "PXA serial port with SA-1100 major" "PXA serial port with SA-1100 major number" "PXA serial port with SA-1100 major device number" Could anything like that be acceptable? How long a line could be? >> Maybe I am missing something obvious, but it seems that such a >> collision is a kernel bug. Someone assumed that PXA cannot have a 8250 >> tty device and used 8250's parameters in PXA tty driver. > > Yes, someone must have messed up, so care to find the root problem here? Two drivers try to use the same resource. It was in pre-git era, so it difficult to find out exactly. I would guess that that 8250 have precedence by at least 5 years. But it is almost guaranteed that lots of people depend on PXA console having ttyS0 name. So simple s/ttyS/ttySA/ is not a solution. My patch preserves status quo by default, but allows to have a correct workaround for those who face a collision. By correct I mean that it will not create a new collision since a system cannot run on both SA-1100 and PXA270 at the same time. This assumption is already documented in arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/irqs.h line 94. -- 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
