On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:12 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:36:40PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote: > > at 21:18, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:05 PM Kai-Heng Feng > > > <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Can you, please, split out the Sunix quirk driver to a separate module > > > (see examples like: 8250_exar, 8250_lpss, 8250_mid)? > > > And then with a fewer LOCs add a new boards. > > > > Greg asked Sunix to use existing 8250_pci.c instead of its own module. > > It only needs a special setup function, other parts are just 8250_pci. > > Agreed. And this patch is already in my tree :) > > If people really worry about size issues, start carving this up by > different configuration options, or yes, split it up into tiny modules > (but note the overhead there when things get too tiny, it's a > diminishing return). It's always a trade off and associative pros and cons. If Sunix is a simple one, I tend to agree that 8250_pci is a good place. For rather big quirk modules, like Exar one, the separate sounds better (and as we can see from retrospective of maintenance). > > > Why does split them a better idea? I even think of squashing 8250_moxa into > > 8250_pci. > > I would agree with you, I bet you save space if you do that. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
