On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 22:00:43 +0000 <Paul.Thacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/05/2016 03:50 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > >> +#define PIC32_SDEV_NAME "ttyS" > >> +#define PIC32_SDEV_MAJOR TTY_MAJOR > >> +#define PIC32_SDEV_MINOR 64 > > > > No. Same goes for you as every one of the forty other people a year who > > try and claim their console is ttyS. If it's not an 8250 it isn't. > > > > ttyS is the 8250, use dynamic major and minor and a different name. > > Ok. Is there a naming convention documented anywhere? How about ttyPIC? We used to document it but the document was always stale. ttyPIC sounds fine providing nobody else is using it (and I don't think they are but grep is your friend). We enforce the rule because in the early days lots of people re-used ttyS for their chip. Then their chip grew an external bus or turned into a SoC and a 16x50 got added and it all broke. ttyPIC ought to be fine because even if you get new PIC devices with a different uart you aren't likely to have both of the PIC cores on the same device. Alan
