On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Fred,
>
>> Signed-off-by: Frédéric Danis <frederic.danis.oss@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/tty/serdev/core.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
[...]
>> @@ -404,9 +488,14 @@ int serdev_controller_add(struct serdev_controller *ctrl)
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - ret = of_serdev_register_devices(ctrl);
>> - if (ret)
>> + ret_of = of_serdev_register_devices(ctrl);
>> + ret_acpi = acpi_serdev_register_devices(ctrl);
>> + if (ret_of && ret_acpi) {
>> + dev_dbg(&ctrl->dev, "serdev%d no devices registered: of:%d acpi:%d\n",
>> + ctrl->nr, ret_of, ret_acpi);
>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>> goto out_dev_del;
>> + }
>>
>> dev_dbg(&ctrl->dev, "serdev%d registered: dev:%p\n",
>> ctrl->nr, &ctrl->dev);
>
> Shouldn’t we just consider to always register the controller? Even if there are no devices attached to it.
You argued for the opposite at least in regards to a serdev ldisc. :)
The problem is we use the success or failure here to decide if we
create a tty char dev or not. I guess we could move that decision out
of the core and let the tty code check for devices and decide.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
