On Feb 28, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Dan Malek wrote:
quoted text >
> On Feb 28, 2007, at 1:00 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> I would much rather see these devices moved to a different minor
>> range.
>
> No. We just did that all too recently, and
> i don't know why the minors didn't get
> allocated properly. I don't want to have to
> update all of our embedded software distributions
> just because someone doesn't like minor
> numbers that aren't causing trouble.
> If we allocate unique spaces for all of the
> possible UART variations, there isn't going
> to be enough space.
>
> Just allocate the four slots and we'll deal with
> anything above this in custom products. Using
> more than four of these processor resources
> as UARTs isn't likely to happen because there
> won't be anything left for the interesting
> communication ports.
Why don't we allocate the 2nd group of four as well, just at a new
location. They'll be discontinuous, but at least we'll have support
for all 8.
- k
-
unsubscribe notice 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/
Messages in current thread:
Re: lanana: Add major/minor entries for PPC QE UART devices , Kumar Gala , (Wed Feb 28, 12:18 pm)