On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 06:35:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 04:50:57PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 01:09:57PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 03:20:08PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:17:59PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > ... > > > > > This driver is not a duplicate of 8250_pnp. It just relies on UART > > > > enumerated as platform device instead of using PNP interfaces. > > > > Isn't it better and simple to have an option to enumerate as platform > > > > device instead of PNP? > > > > > > Ah, then extract platform driver first from 8250_core.c. > > > > > Let me know if I understand your suggestion correctly. Do you mean call > > something like serial8250_acpi_init() from serial8250_init() and > > register the driver directly in serial8250_acpi_init()? > > Extract the code to be 8250_platform.c and update that file. > I have locally the extraction of RSA code, I will see if I can help you > with the rest. > Thanks!. That will be helpful. TBH, I don't understand what to do for extracting the platform driver code. There are already several vendor specific UART drivers (ex: 8250_fsl.c) which are enumerated as platform devices. 8250_core.c looks cleanly supporting such drivers which can register themselves with the core. For generic UART, DT has 8250_of.c and ACPI has 8250_pnp.c. But 8250_pnp.c comes with baggage of PNP contract. So, the driver in this patch is similar to vendor specific drivers to support generic uart devices which are enumerated as platform device. I can rename 8250_acpi.c to 8250_platform.c if that is better. Could you please help with a patch even if not compiled so that I can understand your suggestion better? Thanks for your help! Sunil
