[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160106223247.409a1d2b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 22:32:47 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: <Paul.Thacker@...rochip.com>
Cc: <Joshua.Henderson@...rochip.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>, <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
<Andrei.Pistirica@...rochip.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<jslaby@...e.com>, <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/14] serial: pic32_uart: Add PIC32 UART driver
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 22:00:43 +0000
<Paul.Thacker@...rochip.com> wrote:
> On 01/05/2016 03:50 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> >
> >> +#define PIC32_SDEV_NAME "ttyS"
> >> +#define PIC32_SDEV_MAJOR TTY_MAJOR
> >> +#define PIC32_SDEV_MINOR 64
> >
> > No. Same goes for you as every one of the forty other people a year who
> > try and claim their console is ttyS. If it's not an 8250 it isn't.
> >
> > ttyS is the 8250, use dynamic major and minor and a different name.
>
> Ok. Is there a naming convention documented anywhere? How about ttyPIC?
We used to document it but the document was always stale. ttyPIC sounds
fine providing nobody else is using it (and I don't think they are but
grep is your friend). We enforce the rule because in the early days lots
of people re-used ttyS for their chip. Then their chip grew an external
bus or turned into a SoC and a 16x50 got added and it all broke.
ttyPIC ought to be fine because even if you get new PIC devices with a
different uart you aren't likely to have both of the PIC cores on the
same device.
Alan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists