On Mon 2016-08-22 22:32:23, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > why would we even have it create a /dev/ttyX for these devices in the first place. Lets just not create an uevent for it and lets not create a dev_t for it. > > Because if you don't it's a regression. It's not permissible to break > existing userspace. Well... it would be good to do the right thing, at least in the places where we can. Yes, renumbering people's serials is bad, OTOH for new platforms it would be nice not to expose ttyS15 which can only return -EBUSY. And we may want to do incompatible change at some point. People should not have to use hciattach on n900 from now on until end of time, just because we exposed USB port as ttyO1 in past. ...actually. I guess we should disable that ttyO1 in the device tree for now, so nobody can start using it. As we currently have 2-3 people in world who got that bluetooth to work with out-of-tree patches, breakage should be quite acceptable :-). Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
