On 11/26/2014 08:33 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:37:16 -0800 > , Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:53:58PM -0800, Kevin Cernekee wrote: >>>> From: Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> This email bounces, so I'm going to have to reject this patch. I can't >>> accept a patch from a "fake" person, let alone something that touches >>> core code like this. >>> >>> Sorry, I can't accept anything in this series then. >> >> Oops, guess I probably should have updated his address after the V1 >> emails bounced... >> >> Before I send a new version, what do you think about the overall >> approach? Should we try to make serial8250 coexist with the other >> "ttyS / major 4 / minor 64" drivers (possibly at the expense of >> compatibility) or is it better to start with a simpler, cleaner driver >> like serial/pxa? > > Co-existing really needs to be fixed. What are the requirements for co-existence? Is it sufficient to provide 1st come-1st served minor allocation? Anything done should be designed to solve this name problem forever, not some expeditious band-aid.
