On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:28:00PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > Hi Tomeu, > > Am 12.01.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On 11 May 2015 at 03:56, NeilBrown <neil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> here is version 4 of my "UART slave device" patch set, previously > >> known as "tty slave devices". > > > > Hi Neil, > > > > do you (or someone else) have plans to continue this work in the short > > or medium term? > > yes, there is something in our upstreaming pipeline. This one works for us on top of 4.4.0: > > <http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-kernel.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/work/hns/misc/w2sg-tty-slave2-v4> > > There is one point still to be solved: the exact style of the DT bindings. > > We have an idea how a driver can implement two different styles (child node AND phandle) > so that it is up to the DTS developer to use the one that best fits into the existing DTS. >From my perspective as a binding maintainer, and as I stated before, the child node approach made the most sense and was most consistent with the way we handle other devices. I don't understand what the benefit of supporting two styles of description would be, relative to the maintenance cost. Nor do I understand your fixation with the phandle approach, given it has been repeatedly disagreed with by binding maintainers. Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
