Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: uart_match_port() question | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:36:14 +1100 |
| |
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:30 +0000, Russell King wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:21:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Hi Russel, would you accept a patch like that:
My deepest appologies ! :)
> s/l,/l&/ > > > Index: linux-work/drivers/serial/serial_core.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-work.orig/drivers/serial/serial_core.c 2005-11-14 20:32:16.000000000 +1100 > > +++ linux-work/drivers/serial/serial_core.c 2005-11-27 11:13:54.000000000 +1100 > > @@ -2307,7 +2307,8 @@ > > return (port1->iobase == port2->iobase) && > > (port1->hub6 == port2->hub6); > > case UPIO_MEM: > > - return (port1->membase == port2->membase); > > + return (port1->membase == port2->membase) || > > + (port1->mapbase && port1->mapbase == port2->mapbase); > > } > > return 0; > > } > > I don't think so. (see below)
Heh, Ok.
> Looking at this deeper, I think we should _only_ use mapbase in this > case
Totally agreed.
> . membase is really a indeterminant cookie which bears no real > relationship to whether two ports are identical - in fact, if we are > going to compare two of these cookies, I think arch code should be > involved. > > So how about: > > - return (port1->membase == port2->membase); > + return (port1->mapbase == port2->mapbase);
Yup, indeed. I did it the above way in case you had good reasons of comparing membase too, but indeed, comparing mapbase only makes the most sense.
I'll send a proper patch tomorrow.
Ben. - 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/
| |