From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752012AbXAXQtB (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:49:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752016AbXAXQtB (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:49:01 -0500 Received: from mother.pmc-sierra.com ([216.241.224.12]:55267 "HELO mother.pmc-sierra.bc.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752012AbXAXQtA (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:49:00 -0500 Message-ID: <45B78DF5.9000203@pmc-sierra.com> From: Marc St-Jean To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Alan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial driver PMC MSP71xx, kernel linux-mips.git mast er Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:48:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) x-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jan 2007 16:48:54.0136 (UTC) FILETIME=[88585F80:01C73FD7] user-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061206) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > >>This I would hope you can hide in the platform specific > >>serial_in/serial_out functions. If you write the UART_LCR save it in > >>serial_out(), if you read IER etc. > > > I couldn't find hooks for platform specific serial_in/out functions. > > It's because there are none. :-) > > > Do you mean using the up->port.iotype's in serial_in/out from 8250.c? > > Not sure what Alan meant, but this seems the only option for now. That's the conclusion I came to. I've rewritten the patch to use port.type instead of iotype since one of the fix is SoC and not UART specific. I guess I could use both iotype and type with a test on each for the appropriate bug, what do you recommend? > >>And we might want to add a void * for board specific insanity to the > 8250 > >>structures if we really have to so you can hang your brain damage > >>privately off that ? > > > Sounds good to me, it would give us a location to store the address > of the > > UART_STATUS_REG required by this UART variant. > > I doubt we really need to *store* it somewhere. Isn't it an fixed > offset > from UART's base (I haven't seen the header)? Unfortunately it's not a constant offset from the UART in the SoC register space. I've used Alan suggestion and added a classic, on some other OSes %-|, void "user" pointer. I'll repost as soon I complete testing and try the new timer patch. Marc