Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:11:08PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote: >> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> 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? :) >> >> Will do. >> >> > But note, using a mfd for a uart seems VERY odd to me... >> >> Ok. In my case, I have a pcie card with an fpga which includes 5 uart >> ports, 3 ethernet interfaces and a number of custom IP blocks. >> I believe that an mfd driver for that pcie card in that case. > > I believe you need to fix that fpga to expose individual pci devices > such that you can properly bind the individual devices to the expected > drivers :) Well, that is really out-of-scope of what I am doing here. > Seriously, who makes such a broken fpga device that goes against the PCI > spec that way? Well, not so much as "goes against it", as "ignores all > of the proper ideas of the past 20 years for working with PCI devices". Might be. But that is the firmware I have to work with here, and I still hope we can find a good solution for implementing a driver without having to maintain out-of-tree patches. /Esben
