On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 08:35:57PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:12:28PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 06:52:10PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I've been toying with the idea of removing > > > drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c since that's, to put it bluntly, an > > > ungly copy of 8250 driver. > > > > > > The original concern was wrt suspend/resume but I think it'd be a far > > > better approach to implement runtime PM in 8250 and write a rather small > > > 8250-omap.c glue (much like 8250-acorn.c or 8250-dw.c) just to get the > > > OMAP-specific details out of the way. > > > > > > The question I have is: omap-serial.c calls the serial devnodes ttyO\d, > > > instead of ttyS\d so removing omap-serial.c would have a direct impact > > > in userland. I wonder if it's an acceptable "regression" considering > > > we'd be able to reuse 8250 gaining proper Flow Control support, proper > > > DMA support, years and years of bug-fixes, etc. > > > > Breaking device node names is a contentious issue for serial ports, I > > don't think you can do that :( > > would an upstream udev rule creating a symbolic link from ttyO to ttyS > be enough ? > > I didn't test this yet but I guess this is enough (?) > > KERNEL=="ttyO[0-9]", GROUP="dialout", SYMLINK+="ttyS" or actually it should be to other way around, ttyS would be the real device: KERNEL=="ttyS[0-9]", GROUP="dialout", SYMLINK+="ttyO" -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
