On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
+1
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
