On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 22:00:43 +0000
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 01/05/2016 03:50 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:

quoted

quoted

+#define PIC32_SDEV_NAME		"ttyS"
+#define PIC32_SDEV_MAJOR	TTY_MAJOR
+#define PIC32_SDEV_MINOR	64

No. Same goes for you as every one of the forty other people a year who
try and claim their console is ttyS. If it's not an 8250 it isn't.

ttyS is the 8250, use dynamic major and minor and a different name.

Ok. Is there a naming convention documented anywhere? How about ttyPIC?

We used to document it but the document was always stale. ttyPIC sounds
fine providing nobody else is using it (and I don't think they are but
grep is your friend). We enforce the rule because in the early days lots
of people re-used ttyS for their chip. Then their chip grew an external
bus or turned into a SoC and a 16x50 got added and it all broke.

ttyPIC ought to be fine because even if you get new PIC devices with a
different uart you aren't likely to have both of the PIC cores on the
same device.

Alan