Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stop pmac_zilog from abusing 8250's device numbers.

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:07:16 -0700

David Lang wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
>>>> You don't get machines with 64 ethernet ports on add-in cards. There 
>>>> are
>>>> good reasons for the naming schemes in use.
>>>
>>> I've seen machines offering up to 48, what's the magic number that 
>>> makes you
>>> need to chagne nameing schemes?
>>
>> Have you tried working with 48 ports when they are not numbered 0-47 or
>> in some logical fashion ?
> 
> no, but that's what we're wanting with serial ports as well. a system 
> with 50 serial ports should have them numbered 0-49, not typea0-5, 
> typeb0-39, typec0-5
> 

I would actually disagree.  I have systems with multiport serial cards 
installed, and I much prefer those to be named differently.  Not only do 
I not have to worry about the same problem I *constantly* have with 
onboard Ethernet cards -- whoops I just installed an expansion card and 
suddenly my onboard NIC is eth2! -- but the expansion serial ports tend 
to be *different.*

For example, on my serial server, the Cyclades ports (ttyC*) use RJ-45 
connections from an external expansion module, whereas of course the 
builtin ones (ttyS*) use DB-9s.

	-hpa