On Tue, 07 May 2019, Esben Haabendal wrote: > Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Esben Haabendal wrote: > > > >> The serial8250-mfd driver is for adding 8250/16550 UART ports as functions > >> to an MFD driver. > >> > >> When calling mfd_add_device(), platform_data should be a pointer to a > >> struct plat_serial8250_port, with proper settings like .flags, .type, > >> .iotype, .regshift and .uartclk. Memory (or ioport) and IRQ should be > >> passed as cell resources. > > > > What? No, please! > > > > If you *must* create a whole driver just to be able to use > > platform_*() helpers (which I don't think you should), then please > > call it something else. This doesn't have anything to do with MFD. > > True. > > I really don't think it is a good idea to create a whole driver just to > be able to use platform_get_*() helpers. And if I am forced to do this, > because I am unable to convince Andy to improve the standard serial8250 > driver to support that, it should be called MFD. The driver would be I assume you mean "shouldn't"? > generally usable for all usecases where platform_get_*() works. > > I don't have any idea what to call such a driver. It really would just > be a fork of the current serial8250 driver, just allowing use of > platform_get_*(), supporting exactly the same hardware. > > I am still hoping that we can find a way to improve serial8250 to be > usable in these cases. Me too. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
