On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 22:05:07 -0500 Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 4:14 PM, One Thousand Gnomes > <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 17:37:01 -0500 > > Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> This patch series removes or prepares to remove some of the dependencies > >> on tty_struct within tty_port drivers. This will allow using tty_ports > >> directly for so called UART slave devices. > > > > You can create a tty_struct kernel side with the two tiny changes I > > posted before. Why do you want to do invasive tree wide changes when you > > can do simple ones ? > > Well, I don't want to do invasive changes, but I thought the idea was > to use tty_port struct without a tty_struct. I posted some tiny patches to break the file/tty requirement in the base tty code for comment a while ago and they were very tiny for most ldiscs (n_tty unsurprisingly wouldn't work this way but does anyone need kernel mode n_tty ?) Moving termios into the tty_port is IMHO a good thing to do whichever approach is taken. > I was planning to keep termios out of tty_port and make clients of > tty_port carry it if for nothing else not quite understanding all the > details around the lifetime, init and locking of it. If there's always > a tty_struct then there's not much point moving it other than which > struct makes more sense. But that would cause some churn. The termios lifetime is the lifetime of the port, although it may get reset at some times. Alan -- 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
