On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:41:53 -0800
"Vitaly Wool" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0300 "Vitaly Wool" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hmm, why? I can't think of a platform where one 8250-compatible UART is
> > > problematic and another isn't :)
> > >
> >
> > Is it not possible that the same kernel package can be installed on systems
> > which do and don't need this feature? If so, we don't want to force the
> > provider of that package to create two packages.
> >
> > That, plus the chances of the package creator actually knowing about this
> > option aren't great.
> >
> > Generally, if it can be done at runtime it is better to do so, no?
>
> Okay, yes, I see your point. The same kernel might actually be
> supporting several machines.
>
> But having that as a config option doesn't look too attractive to me.
> What about adding a new flag to plat_serial 8250 stuff instead?
plat_serial8250_port.flags? Dunno, I'm unfamiliar with it. That seems to be how
the share_irqs option is handled.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
