Rob Herring, on jeu. 16 mars 2017 09:02:07 -0500, wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Samuel Thibault > <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sebastian Reichel, on jeu. 16 mars 2017 09:02:40 +0000, wrote: > >> +void serdev_device_set_rts(struct serdev_device *serdev, bool enable) > > > > Rather than defining a set_rts(enable), and then someone will want to > > set DTR, and similarly, get_cts() + get_dsr()... Why not sticking to the > > TTY ops, i.e. defining serdev_device_tiocmset(serdev, set, clear) and > > serdev_device_tiocmget? That'd seem much more straightforward to me and > > coherent with the TTY ops. > > I'd prefer to keep operations as specific functions that we can make > slightly higher level and common across drivers. For example, a "wait > for CTS" function rather than drivers implementing their own wait > loops. For waiting, I completely agree, but for setting, it looks odd not to use the tiocmset(set,clear) interface as implemented by TTY, which is as convenient to use as set_rts(enable) while being universal. Samuel -- 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
