Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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"? Of-course. >> 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. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to convince Andy to accept something like that. I might have to do this out-of-tree :( /Esben
