Hi, On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:07:36AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:34:44AM -0500, Robert Nelson wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:34:11AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > >> * Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@xxxxxxxxx> [140702 12:27]: > > >> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > Hi, > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 11:09:32AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > >> > >> > It has been only tested as console UART. > > >> > >> > The tty name is ttyS based instead of ttyO. How big is the pain here, > > >> > >> > what could be the easiest way to provide compatibility? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> have been considering that myself for months. You could pass an optional > > >> > >> argument to serial8250_register_8250_port() but that only solves part of > > >> > >> the problem :-( > > >> > > >> Some kind of compability layer sure would be nice. > > >> > > >> > > When ttyS -> ttyO change was done on OMAP, compatibility was not an issue. > > >> > > Why should we care about it now? > > >> > > > >> > It would be a good opportunity to force everyone to update their bootloader. ;) > > >> > > > >> > Besides the BeagleBoard forum is quiet now, no one is complaining > > >> > about that old (ttyS -> ttyO) transition anymore.. > > >> > > >> How about a Kconfig option to provide ttyO by default? The not even > > >> do that if kernel has cmdline option nottyomap. > > > > > > what about single zImage ? I don't want to use ttyO on my > > > Allwinner/Exynos/Snapdragon/whatever SoC just because OMAP is in the > > > same image ;-) > > > > What if we just kept it simple, leave the ttyO driver enabled and add > > a warning (pr_info) that it's deprecated. It's not like it's broken, > > it just won't get later features or devices support added. > > Fine by me, I'd switch to 8250 as soon as it's merged though :-) would > be nice to get an example DTS change just so I can start testing on the > boards I have around. DT is supposed to contain information about the hardware, so it should stay the same? I think there is no non-hackish way to decide at runtime which driver should be loaded. One possible solution is: * Keep both drivers for a couple of kernel releases * Add the deprecation warning to the older one * Add a conflict between both drivers in Kconfig Thus its decided at build-time, which driver should be used. This would keep existing .config files working for a couple of releases. -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
