Hi! Iain,


Thanks you follows.


From: Iain Hibbert <plunky@rya-online.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:58:49 +0000 (GMT)

> I don't think it is necessary to move COMUNIT defines out of dev/ic/com.c
> since you only use it for informational output (and I think the printf
> can't be right anyway, its not just "tty%02d")

hmm...
If the mask of COMUNIT is changed, we will be embarrassed.  And, the device
node of tty becomes like tty03 for instance. 


> > My LSI vendor is ericsson.  Besides, I think that the initialization of
> > CSR is also possible. However, I do not have the device of CSR.
> [...]
> > I am referring to hciattach(8) of bluez.  The data sheet of ericsson
> > and CSR was seen.  However, the rest was not able to be found.
> 
> Hmm.. hciattach(8) does the initialisation of the device from userland,
> would that not work better? Seems that it makes it easier to upgrade
> device support if that is not in the kernel..

I don't know that.  However that will work perhaps.
I be anxious about it, 
Processing for LSI that cannot confirm the initialization procedure
uncertain, and operation is believed. 
And, the necessity might not be in the initialization only of the
acquisition of the version number. 


Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:15:50 +0000 (GMT)

> I'm not sure that the way you handle making a new device is proper,
> because you duplicate functionality from the kernel autoconf routines and
> when that evolves, btuart would be left behind..  I think it would be
> better to use config_attach_pseudo()/config_detach() to handle that, see
> dev/hpc/hpf1275a_tty.c for a nicely written example of that.

Thanks your nice follow.

By the way I want support for A2DP and LAP. What time do you make it?  ;-)
--
kiyohara