On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 06:00:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 07:39:06AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > SG2044 relys on an internal divisor when calculating bitrate, which
> > means a wrong clock for the most common bitrates. So add a quirk for
> > this uart device to skip the set rate call and only relys on the
> > internal UART divisor.
>
> ...
>
> > +static const struct dw8250_platform_data dw8250_sophgo_sg2044_data = {
> > + .usr_reg = DW_UART_USR,
> > + .quirks = DW_UART_QUIRK_SKIP_SET_RATE,
> > +};
> > +
> > static const struct dw8250_platform_data dw8250_starfive_jh7100_data = {
> > .usr_reg = DW_UART_USR,
> > .quirks = DW_UART_QUIRK_SKIP_SET_RATE,
>
> For the bare minimum this should be deduplicated as to have one record for now.
>
> static const struct dw8250_platform_data dw8250_skip_set_rate_data = {
> .usr_reg = DW_UART_USR,
> .quirks = DW_UART_QUIRK_SKIP_SET_RATE,
> };
>
> If we need different quirks in the future, they can be split again.
> Or, if you certain that new quirks will come, mention this in
> the commit message.
>
Yes, renaming this quirk as a common one is better. I will prefer if
this patch is necessary. Duplication is not a good idea.
> ...
>
> > { .compatible = "cavium,octeon-3860-uart", .data = &dw8250_octeon_3860_data },
> > { .compatible = "marvell,armada-38x-uart", .data = &dw8250_armada_38x_data },
> > { .compatible = "renesas,rzn1-uart", .data = &dw8250_renesas_rzn1_data },
> > + { .compatible = "sophgo,sg2044-uart", .data = &dw8250_sophgo_sg2044_data },
> > { .compatible = "starfive,jh7100-uart", .data = &dw8250_starfive_jh7100_data },
>
> I think my proposal for having a common compatible for those two is a no-go
> as compatible strings are for the (unique) hardware and shouldn't be abstracted
> based on some Linux or other OS shortcuts / quirks.
>
Yes, a common compatible is not a good idea. But it is OK to share a common quirk,
which means they have the same problem.
Regards,
Inochi
