On 13 March 2013 04:03, Сергей Янович <ynvich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Patch discussion seemed to stall. Could we restart? -- 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
