linux-kernel - Re: lanana: Add major/minor entries for PPC QE UART devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45E5C333.2060100@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:00:19 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
CC:	Dan Malek <dan@...eddedalley.com>, Torben.Mathiasen@...com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-ppc-embedded <linuxppc-embedded@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: lanana: Add major/minor entries for PPC QE UART devices

Timur Tabi wrote:
> Dan Malek wrote:
> 
>> I'd shoot that down, too.  Using udev in an
>> embedded, reliable environment is very
>> troublesome.  Although, products I've
>> developed using more than 4 UARTs had
>> some custom /dev work done to it just
>> to get everything mapped.  My only
>> concern is we don't add a new range for
>> QE UARTs, that we use the same minors
>> for both CPM and QE.
> 
> Then it appears that the only possible solution is to assign numbers 46 
> - 53 to the CPM/QE and accept that it overlaps with the Altix.  Is 
> everyone okay with that?
> 

I would much rather see these devices moved to a different minor range.

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/