On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:41:35PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote: > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:47:41AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > >> On Tue, 14 May 2019, Esben Haabendal wrote: > >> > >> > 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. > >> > >> Andy is not he Maintainer. > >> > >> What are Greg and Jiri's opinions? > > > > I've been ignoring all of this at the moment because of the 5.2-rc merge > > window. I'll look at it after -rc1 is out. > > > > thanks, > > greg k-h > > Great, thanks! > > I will try ad hold back with this thread until you get back to it. Ok, I have no idea what is going on here, sorry. This is a really long and meandering thread, and I can't even find the original patches in my queue. So can you resend things and we can start over? :) But note, using a mfd for a uart seems VERY odd to me... thanks, greg k-h
