[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] serial: samsung: Move uart_register_driver call to device probe
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:30:00PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:45:05AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Peter handed it on. Try using git log on Documentation/devices.txt. It
> > > still gets updates.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you'd care to stick to reality and fix the tree instead of trying
> > > to excuse the mess ?
> >
> > Perhaps returning to reality might be advantageous rather than trying
> > to repeat statements which can't have any bearing on this - especially
> > as the git history which you're referring to only goes back to 2.6.12-rc2,
> > and this predates 2.6.12-rc2 by a long shot.
> >
> > > More importantly certain folks need to stop abusing static numbers
> > > allocated properly. Repeating it having made a total hash of it before
> > > is dismal.
> >
> > And if you continue these stupid accusations which have no basis at all,
> > we're going to get into a real big argument, because you are soo _wrong_
> > on that point. I was always the one arguing /against/ the re-use of
> > existing major/minor numbers. I was the one arguing /against/ Nicolas'
> > patches to make every serial port appear in the 4,64 ttyS namespace.
> If you remember correctly, that was my attempt at making serial port
> minor assignment to be dynamic... just like everything else is today.
> And it seemed to me that you thought this was a good idea.

I may have thought that a dynamic space for serial devices was a good
idea, but what I was referring to above was specifically the

Unfortunately, there's precious little public evidence of this as the
patches were never posted to a public mailing list. However, what there
is (as part of another thread) shows that I held that view:

Plus, of course, the comments in the patch system where I picked out a
number of further technical issues, such as changing inode->i_rdev,
userspace locking, etc.

If you want to review them, they're 1427/1 - 1434/1, 1435/2, 1436/2.
Unfortunately the authorship of those comments was lost.

Hence, my recollection is correct here.

FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: 5.8Mbps down 500kbps up. Estimation
in database were 13.1 to 19Mbit for a good line, about 7.5+ for a bad.
Estimate before purchase was "up to 13.2Mbit".

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-27 14:21    [W:0.224 / U:1.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site