From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 18 09:20:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 914DF4C6 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:20:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CB5A186F for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:20:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s3I9K13D072183 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:20:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s3I9K1hZ072182; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:20:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:20:01 GMT Message-Id: <201404180920.s3I9K1hZ072182@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Milan Obuch Subject: Re: kern/186891: [puc] [patch] MCS9922 based card not known X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: Milan Obuch List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:20:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/186891; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Milan Obuch To: Marius Strobl Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/186891: [puc] [patch] MCS9922 based card not known Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 11:05:25 +0200 On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 23:26:56 +0200 Marius Strobl wrote: > The submitted patch seems inherently bogus; the referenced function > puc_config_saturn() doesn't exist/isn't provided and it's always a bad > idea to add an entry for a device that potentially is part of a line > of controllers with different port configurations and all having the > same vendor and device ID combination as a wildcard match to puc(4). > However, most importantly, MCS9922 apparently are multi-function > devices providing one UART per function so puc(4) shouldn't be used > in the first place but uart(4) should be tought to probe and attach > these controllers directly instead. Could you please revert your > patch for puc(4) and test whether the attached one provies you with > two instances of uart(4) for that card? > > Marius > I will test your patch, allow some time to do so, but you are only partially right - MCS9922 provides not only one UART per function, there is also GPIO (and possibly I2C) available to. On my board only UARTs are used, but some time later I am considering some hardware modification to access GPIO too. Not known yet is how to use that on software side... Milan