Hi all,
I was wondering, since arch/powerpc is now based on device trees,
shouldn't the cpm_uart driver (or at least a branch of it for
arch/powerpc) be changed to use of_platform_bus_type instead of
platform_bus_type? In my opinion, cpm_uart driver should take all its
configuration (uart address base, ints etc) from dts (via the of_platform
code) without any intervention from board specific code. In any case,
given the current situation, how can I pass cpm_uart the address/irq of
the uarts? by hardcoding it in my board specific code? mpc82xx_ads.c
doesn't seem to have such code, and I was wondering how SCC uarts work in
this platform? Who initializes them?
thank you
Alex
Hm, it seems that, after all, cpm_uart works fine without any board
specific code whatsoever. Sorry about the fuss. My mistake
Regards
Alex
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:55:30 +0300, Alexandros Kostopoulos
[off-list ref] wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering, since arch/powerpc is now based on device trees,
shouldn't the cpm_uart driver (or at least a branch of it for
arch/powerpc) be changed to use of_platform_bus_type instead of
platform_bus_type? In my opinion, cpm_uart driver should take all its
configuration (uart address base, ints etc) from dts (via the
of_platform code) without any intervention from board specific code. In
any case, given the current situation, how can I pass cpm_uart the
address/irq of the uarts? by hardcoding it in my board specific code?
mpc82xx_ads.c doesn't seem to have such code, and I was wondering how
SCC uarts work in this platform? Who initializes them?
thank you
Alex
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:55:30PM +0300, Alexandros Kostopoulos wrote:
I was wondering, since arch/powerpc is now based on device trees,
shouldn't the cpm_uart driver (or at least a branch of it for
arch/powerpc) be changed to use of_platform_bus_type instead of
platform_bus_type?
Yes. The patch is on the way Really Soon Now(tm).
-Scott