From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21031 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2009 13:25:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 21016 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2009 13:25:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mgcn1.bloomberg.com (HELO mgcn1.bloomberg.com) (199.172.169.46) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:25:16 +0000 Received: from ny1520.bloomberg.com ([10.16.11.97]) by mgcn1.bloomberg.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2009 08:24:13 -0500 Received: from NY2528-DR.corp.bloomberg.com (ny2528-dr.corp.bloomberg.com [10.14.21.30]) by ny1520.bloomberg.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n0EDP88G020858; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:25:09 -0500 Received: from ny2545.corp.bloomberg.com ([172.20.73.98]) by NY2528-DR.corp.bloomberg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:25:08 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Serial VS Diagnostic interface Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:25:00 -0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <69b5c5160901140502x62d7e748uc65136d473f83fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <69b5c5160901131157x14de6cdek72b7b8c86455a709@mail.gmail.com> <69b5c5160901140502x62d7e748uc65136d473f83fb@mail.gmail.com> From: "Chris Zimman" To: "andrew wiggin" Cc: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 > Actually as it just inline code. I have already checked it is > correctly included. Maybe I should have been more explicit: Is there > anything to ensure the HW serial driver is correctly initialized ? > Where should pc_serial_lookup() be called in a normal behavior ? If you can build the serial tests and they pass, you should be in good shap= e. Alternatively, if opening "/dev/ser0" succeeds, you're good to go. =20 > I would have another question then, I have noticed that with GCC 4.2.2 > (which is the one I use), the DEVTAB_ENTRY may be removed if the > TABLE_END is declared before adding any additional entry. Is anybody > else having the same issue ? I don't use GCC 4.x having moved to EABI a while ago, so I'm afraid I can't offer any advice here. --Chris