From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755837Ab0JGUgf (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:36:35 -0400 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:10893 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755624Ab0JGUgc (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:36:32 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6129"; a="56986339" Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: DCC(JTAG) serial and console emulation support From: Daniel Walker To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Hyok S. Choi" , Tony Lindgren , Jeff Ohlstein , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ben Dooks , Alan Cox , Kukjin Kim , Mike Frysinger , Feng Tang , Tobias Klauser , Jason Wessel , Philippe Langlais In-Reply-To: <20101007215019.17b4a34a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> References: <1286476616-3373-1-git-send-email-dwalker@codeaurora.org> <20101007215019.17b4a34a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:36:06 -0700 Message-ID: <1286483766.23836.39.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 21:50 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > + Say Y here if you want to install DCC driver as a normal serial port > > + /dev/ttyS0 (major 4, minor 64). Otherwise, it appears as /dev/ttyJ0 > > + (major 4, minor 128) and can co-exist with other UARTs, such as > > + 8250/16C550 compatibles. > > + > > NAK to both Both what? > ttyJ0 is 204,186 for "JTAG1 DCC protocol based serial" > > so there is an existing name and minor allocation, which as you won't be > using two of them should be quite usable. > > If you want to be able to switch at runtime to pretend it is ttyS0 please > deal with that in your user space. The same rules apply to you as have > been applied to everyone else who has tried to implement this same crap > in their uart driver too (we'd have it in about 30 by now otherwise) I would agree if this wasn't strictly for debugging embedded devices in difficult situations.. After talking to Mike, it's seems like it would be useful to have this as a ttyS* specifically because embedded devices won't always create a ttyJ* for you and ttyS* will likely already exist. Daniel -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.