Hi all,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:50:40PM +0800, Ken Xue wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 14:30 +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:29:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > > > + id = acpi_match_device(p->dev->driver
>> > > > ->acpi_match_table, p->dev);
>> > > > + if ((id && strcmp(id->id, "AMD0020") &&
>> > > > + strcmp(id->id, "APMC0D08")) || !id) {
>> > >
>> > > Shouldn't we ask the actual owners of such devices if they have the
>> > > Busy Functionality enabled?
>> >
>> > Yes. Now this check will simply ensure that the behaviour on those
>> > platforms is the same as before. But in any case, like you said, let's
>> > get the confirmation.
>> >
>> > Ken, Feng! Could you tell us if the DW_apb_uart on your platforms has
>> > the Busy Functionality or not (UART_16550_COMPATIBLE)?
>>
>> Thanks for your reminders.
>> Currently, "AMD0020" also does not support "UART_IIR_BUSY".
>
> Cool! Then we can just drop that condition completely and just set the
> uart_16550_compatible flag always if ACPI companion exists.
>
Hijacking this thread since this reminded me of a question that I had
a while back but never followed up on: is there any particular reason
to prefer the 8250_dw instead of the regular 8250 driver when
UART_16550_COMPATIBLE is set? Wouldn't the regular 8250 driver then
work fine, since the block is then supposed to behave like a NatSemi
16550?
Best regards,
Gregory
--
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
