From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932811Ab0JHTBf (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:01:35 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:29602 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932652Ab0JHTBd (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:01:33 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6130"; a="57216394" Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: DCC(JTAG) serial and console emulation support From: Daniel Walker To: Mike Frysinger Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Hyok S. Choi" , Tony Lindgren , Jeff Ohlstein , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ben Dooks , Alan Cox , Kukjin Kim , Feng Tang , Tobias Klauser , Jason Wessel , Philippe Langlais In-Reply-To: References: <1286476616-3373-1-git-send-email-dwalker@codeaurora.org> <20101007215019.17b4a34a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1286483766.23836.39.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20101007220538.2294a7e4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1286484678.23836.49.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <1286486094.23836.59.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20101008091331.74871a42@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1286551434.4153.21.camel@m0nster> <20101008175636.766dd1f5@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1286556328.4153.142.camel@m0nster> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 12:01:31 -0700 Message-ID: <1286564491.4153.284.camel@m0nster> 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 Fri, 2010-10-08 at 14:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:45, Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 17:56 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > I don't think the kernel is going to implode if we allow an optional > >> > ttyS override for debugging purposes.. I just don't see that "screwing" > >> > up the kernel. > >> > >> That is perhaps why you are not a subsystem maintainer. > > > > No, I'm sure it's not. > > > > What I was telling Greg is that this type of override is allowed right > > now, if you mod the source (everything is allowed if you mod the source > > right?) .. > > just because someone can mod the source code to add a root shell > doesnt mean we should accept patches to do it That's not what I was getting at. If you can mod the source to add the override, then adding in a patch which also requires you to mod the source to add the override should be acceptable because it's no different that what we currently have. Daniel -- Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.