On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:44:52PM +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Monday 06 October 2014 16:02:09 Andrew Ruder wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 09:29:36PM +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > >> > Actually, I have a question for Andrew : was your commit aimed at the 3 or 4 > >> > available UARTs (ie. in peripheral address space), or is it a case where an > >> > external UART is mapped on the system bus (if that is possible) ? > >> > >> My apologies! I'm actually on a really long-term project of getting my > >> board (similar to zeus board already in the kernel) fully running off of > >> devicetree. For this particular board, all of the UARTS are on the > >> system bus and not the built in ones. But yes - I do see how the > >> built-in UARTS would overlap and hit the BUG_ON on other boards. Any > >> thoughts on a better way of solving this than just reverting the patch > >> back into only working on the built-in UARTs? > > > > I think the best way forward is to make the built-in UARTs work with > > debug_ll_io_init and then apply your patch again. > Yes, and that means revert, right ? I think so, yes. See my response to Arnd. > I don't see how to do it without ugly ifdefery though such as : > [...] > But that's awfull, there should be another better way ... I agree, surely other ports are getting around this problem in another way? Cheers, Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html