linux-kernel - Re: questions about 8250 uart support for adhoc boards

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: <20070308151612.GD30023@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:16:12 +0000
From:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Rob Prowel <prowel@...hera.com>
Cc:	Stuart MacDonald <stuartm@...necttech.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: questions about 8250 uart support for adhoc boards

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 03:40:57PM -0500, Rob Prowel wrote:
> Stuart MacDonald wrote:
> >Would it be more intuitive to give ports the default uartclk of
> >1843200 at init time? That would avoid this issue, but would make the
> >baud rates come out wrong on hardware with a non-standard clock, if a
> >base baud wasn't specified.
> >
> >  
> 
> I prefer the option to specify the base baud rate in setserial from a 
> startup script.  Having the additional ports at BAUD 0 (unusable) until 
> some explicit action is taken strikes me as a safer option, provided 
> this gets properly documented in the kernel Documentation directory and 
> in Linux HOWTO docs.

Is someone going to do that?  Who volunteers?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
-
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/