Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:20:00 -0700 | | From | Andrew Morton <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.6] Altix serial driver |
| |
Pat Gefre <pfg@sgi.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > + Pat Gefre <pfg@sgi.com> wrote: > + > > + > We think we should stick with the major/minor set we have proposed. We > + > don't like hacking the 8250 code, dynamic allocation doesn't work (once > + > that works we will update our driver to use it), registering for our > + > own major/minor may not work (if we DO get one we will update the > + > driver to reflect it) but in the meantime we need to get something in > + > the community that works. > + > + "we don't like" isn't a very strong argument ;) > + > + It does sound to me like some work is needed in the generic serial layer to > + teach it to get its sticky paws off the ttyS0 major/minor if there is no > + corresponding hardware. AFAICT nobody has scoped out exactly what has to > + be done for a clean solution there - it may not be very complex. So could > + we please explore that a little further? > + > + If that proves to be impractical for some reason then I'd be inclined to > + allocate a new misc minor, stick it in devices.txt and be done with it. > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Use a different major > (one that is likely to not be used by anyone else on our system) and a > minor that no one is assigned ? >
Or use dynamic allocation. I'm trying to understand why early-boot code needs to know the major/minor when it will be accessing the driver via /dev/console anyway.
- 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/
|  |