Hi Johan, On 15. 11. 19 9:21, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi Johan, > > On 13. 11. 19 16:38, Johan Hovold wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:00:08PM +0000, shubhrajyoti.datta@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> This patch is removing ULITE_NR_PORTS macro which limits number of >>> ports which can be used. Every instance is registering own struct >>> uart_driver with minor number which corresponds to alias ID (or 0 now). >>> and with 1 uart port. The same alias ID is saved to >>> tty_driver->name_base which is key field for creating ttyULX name. >>> >>> Because name_base and minor number are setup already there is no need to >>> setup any port->line number because 0 is the right value. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> v4: patch addition >>> v5: Merge the patch so that all the patches compile >> >> Greg, >> >> Please do not merge this. This is a hack which really needs to be >> reconsidered as I've pointed before >> >> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190523091839.GC568@localhost > > I think it is quite a good time to start to talk about it. > Over the time I am aware about only one issue related to one way how to > handle console which came recently. I was looking at it 2 weeks before > ELCE but I need to get back on this. > Anyway I am ready for discussion about it. > What was said so far is that we shouldn't add Kconfig option for number > of uarts. We could maybe hardcode any big number in the driver as is > done for pl011 but still it is limitation and wasting of space for > allocation structures which none will use. > Then I have done this concept and it was merged where struct uart_driver > is allocated for every instance separately and I really tried to get > feedback on this as we discussed some time ago. > > Anyway we are where we are and if this needs to be fixed then please > tell me how you think that this should be solved. any comment? M
