On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:49:56AM +0100, Dirk Behme wrote: > On 19.12.2011 04:49, Shawn Guo wrote: > >On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 06:34:14PM +0100, Dirk Behme wrote: > >>Factor out the uart save/restore functionality instead of > >>having the same code several times in the driver. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme<dirk.behme@xxxxxxxxx> > >>CC: Saleem Abdulrasool<compnerd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>CC: Sascha Hauer<s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>CC: Fabio Estevam<festevam@xxxxxxxxx> > >>CC: Uwe Kleine-König<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>CC: linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>--- > >> drivers/tty/serial/imx.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > >> 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c > >>index 163fc90..6a01c2a 100644 > >>--- a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c > >>+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c > >>@@ -260,6 +260,31 @@ static inline int is_imx21_uart(struct imx_port *sport) > >> } > >> > >> /* > >>+ * Save and restore functions for UCR1, UCR2 and UCR3 registers > >>+ */ > >>+static void imx_console_mode(struct uart_port *port, > > > >Function name imx_console_mode seems not like a couple with > >imx_console_restore. And I guess something like > >imx_port_ucrs_save[restore] would be better? > > > >>+ unsigned int *ucr1, > >>+ unsigned int *ucr2, > >>+ unsigned int *ucr3) > > > >Can we define something like 'struct imx_port_ucrs' to contains these? > > Yes, we could have different function names above and use a struct. > > I implemented what Sascha asked for in > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg144960.html > > though: > > -- Sascha wrote: -- > I'm thinking about: > > imx_console_mode(struct uart_port *port, u32 *ucr1, u32 *ucr2, u32 *ucr2); > imx_console_restore(struct uart_port *port, u32 ucr1, u32 ucr2, u32 ucr3); > -- Sascha end -- > > It seems Shawn proposes > > imx_port_ucrs_save(struct uart_port *port, struct *imx_port_ucrs); > imx_port_ucrs_restore(struct uart_port *port, struct *imx_port_ucrs); > > (?) > > Sascha, Shawn: Could you agree on what we should use? I think save/restore are better names. Maybe I thought about a function which saves the current values *and* sets ucrx to other values. In that case imx_port_ucrs_save() would be the wrong name. > > Once you agreed, I will send an update of both two patches. +1 for save/restore Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
