Bug#364637: any other way around pmac_zilog problem? WAS: Bug#364637: I see, change in 8250.c between 2.6.15 and 2.6.16

["Toni L. Harbaugh-Blackford [Contr]" <harbaugh@abcc.ncifcrf.gov>]

Hi

The conflict between pmac_zilog and the 8250/16550 driver still exists in the
latest daily images.  Is there any other way around the issue besides patching
the source for 8250.c?

Is there a way to change the order in which the kernel attempts the drivers,
to have pmac_zilog go before 8250.c?

I can't really fix this myself, because I can't get a working debian installation
to do it on.  Anyone have a workaround?

Thanks,
Toni


On Thu, 18 May 2006, Sven Luther wrote:

  > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:37:24AM -0400, Toni L. Harbaugh-Blackford [Contr] wrote:
  > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Brad Boyer wrote:
  > >
  > >   > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:11:32PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
  > >   > > > What is supposed to happen after 'Trying to im_free...' ?
  > >   > >
  > >   > > Attaching the full log. The isa stuff is probably related to the graphic card.
  > >   > >
  > >   >
  > >   > > Serial: 8250/16550 driver $Revision: 1.90 $ 4 ports, IRQ sharing disabled
  > >   > > pmac_zilog: 0.6 (Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>)
  > >   > > pmac_zilog: Error registering serial device, disabling pmac_zilog.
  > >   > > pmac_zilog: Did another serial driver already claim the minors?
  > >   > > Trying to im_free nonexistent area (d00008008216c000)
  > >   > > Trying to im_free nonexistent area (d00008008216e000)
  > >   >
  > >   > Here is the problem. The 8250/16550 driver used to have a check to make
  > >   > it bail out on all PowerMac models. It used to print out a message to
  > >   > that fact, too. The pmac_zilog driver is dying a miserable death because
  > >   > it thinks it should be the only serial driver, but in this case it isn't.
  > >   >
  > >   > 	Brad Boyer
  > >   > 	flar@allandria.com
  > >   >
  > >
  > > I see.  Comparing drivers/serial/8250.c between the debian kernel source
  > > packages for testing (2.6.15-8) and unstable (2.6.16-12) shows a number
  > > of missing ifdefs.  But are these differences because changes which need
  > > to be continued were just not applied to 2.6.16, or did someone feel
  > > that these ifdefs were no longer needed and removed them?
  >
  > Indeed, that was the patch. It is disabled, probablybecause it doesn't apply
  > anymore, and needs redoing.
  >
  > Friendly,
  >
  > Sven Luther
  >
  >
  > --
  > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
  > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  >

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Harbaugh-Blackford                   harbaugh@abcc.ncifcrf.gov
System Administrator
Advanced Biomedical Computing Center (ABCC)
National Cancer Institute
Contractor - SAIC/Frederick