From patchwork Thu Nov 19 13:32:19 2009 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Alon Ziv X-Patchwork-Id: 38833 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A52100A84 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:32:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.discretix.com (mail.discretix.com [192.116.217.178]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80FEB1007D1 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:32:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from Exchange.discretix.com ([192.116.217.170]) by eSafe SMTP Relay 1256458625; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:29:57 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Bug in drivers/serial/of_serial.c? Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:32:19 +0200 Message-ID: <8B957E110B62714A84290A01A597805F05D2AE44@Exchange.discretix.com> In-Reply-To: <200911191401.37531.arnd@arndb.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Bug in drivers/serial/of_serial.c? Thread-Index: AcppGHEA2Q+b0+10Qsy/nQ/yhHi6wAAA6QwQ References: <8B957E110B62714A84290A01A597805F05CA0AA0@Exchange.discretix.com> <200911160909.08433.arnd@arndb.de> <8B957E110B62714A84290A01A597805F05D2AE31@Exchange.discretix.com> <200911191401.37531.arnd@arndb.de> From: "Alon Ziv" To: "Arnd Bergmann" , X-ESAFE-STATUS: Mail clean X-ESAFE-DETAILS: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Hi, On Thursday, November 19, 2009, Arnd wrote: > In that case, add another entry for the device encoded in the firmware > itself. The ns16550 entry should be the second one after a more specific > one telling which device it is exactly. > Is the following better? --- [PATCH] Xilinx 16550 UART is actually 16550A-compatible .data = (void *)PORT_16550A, }, { .type = "serial", .compatible = "ns16550", .data = (void *)PORT_16550, }, { .type = "serial", .compatible = "ns16750", .data = (void *)PORT_16750, }, { .type = "serial", .compatible = "ns16850", .data = (void *)PORT_16850, }, ********************************************************************************************** IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. diff --git a/drivers/serial/of_serial.c b/drivers/serial/of_serial.c index 02406ba..40bf8f4 100644 --- a/drivers/serial/of_serial.c +++ b/drivers/serial/of_serial.c @@ -161,6 +161,7 @@ static int of_platform_serial_remove(struct of_device *ofdev) static struct of_device_id __devinitdata of_platform_serial_table[] = { { .type = "serial", .compatible = "ns8250", .data = (void *)PORT_8250, }, { .type = "serial", .compatible = "ns16450", .data = (void *)PORT_16450, }, + { .type = "serial", .compatible = "xlnx,xps-uart16550-2.00.b",