On 08/02/2021 19.34, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2021-02-07 09:12, Hector Martin 'marcan' wrote:
On 06/02/2021 22.15, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Do you actually need a new port type here? Looking at the driver
itself, it is mainly used to work out the IRQ model. Maybe introducing
a new irq_type field in the port structure would be better than
exposing this to userspace (which should see something that is exactly
the same as a S3C UART).
Well... every S3C variant already has its own port type here.
#define PORT_S3C2410 55
#define PORT_S3C2440 61
#define PORT_S3C2400 67
#define PORT_S3C2412 73
#define PORT_S3C6400 84
If we don't introduce a new one, which one should we pretend to be? :)
Pick one! :D
*queries /dev/urandom* :-)
I agree that it might make sense to merge all of these into one,
though; I don't know what the original reason for splitting them out
is. But now that they're part of the userspace API, this might not be
a good idea. Though, unsurprisingly, some googling suggests there are
zero users of these defines in userspace.
I don't think we can do that, but I don't think we should keep adding
to this unless there is a very good reason. Greg would know, I expect.
Greg, what do you think? Add more PORT_ UART types for Samsung variants,
or overload one of the existing ones and deal with it in the driver?
--
Hector Martin (marcan@xxxxxxxxx)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub
