Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265261AbUF1WVU (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:21:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265260AbUF1WVU (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:21:20 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:55987 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265261AbUF1WVS (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:21:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:20:00 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Pat Gefre Cc: pfg@sgi.com, erikj@subway.americas.sgi.com, rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk, cw@f00f.org, hch@infradead.org, jbarnes@engr.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] Altix serial driver Message-Id: <20040628152000.4b7665c6.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20040628121312.75ac9ed7.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1713 Lines: 38 Pat Gefre wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > + Pat Gefre wrote: > + > > + > We think we should stick with the major/minor set we have proposed. We > + > don't like hacking the 8250 code, dynamic allocation doesn't work (once > + > that works we will update our driver to use it), registering for our > + > own major/minor may not work (if we DO get one we will update the > + > driver to reflect it) but in the meantime we need to get something in > + > the community that works. > + > + "we don't like" isn't a very strong argument ;) > + > + It does sound to me like some work is needed in the generic serial layer to > + teach it to get its sticky paws off the ttyS0 major/minor if there is no > + corresponding hardware. AFAICT nobody has scoped out exactly what has to > + be done for a clean solution there - it may not be very complex. So could > + we please explore that a little further? > + > + If that proves to be impractical for some reason then I'd be inclined to > + allocate a new misc minor, stick it in devices.txt and be done with it. > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Use a different major > (one that is likely to not be used by anyone else on our system) and a > minor that no one is assigned ? > Or use dynamic allocation. I'm trying to understand why early-boot code needs to know the major/minor when it will be accessing the driver via /dev/console anyway. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/