Hi Rob,
>>> 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.
we never got the serdev ldisc working. Is there still an attempt to get this working. I frankly don’t know what is best here.
Regards
Marcel
--
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
