On Fri, 7 Oct 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 03:24:16PM -0700, matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 10:00:43AM -0700, matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 07:37:18AM -0700, matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
...
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html?highlight=reported#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes
"The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it
hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future. Please note that if the
bug was reported in private, then ask for permission first before using the
Reported-by tag. The tag is intended for bugs; please do not use it to credit
feature requests."
The kernel test robot did find a bug in my v1 submission. I was missing the
static keyword for a function declaration. Should I remove the tag?
What's yours take from the above documentation?
Since the kernel test robot did find a bug. The tag should stay.
I suggest otherwise because of the last sentence in the cited excerpt: "please
do not use it to credit feature requests". To distinguish "feature request" you
can ask yourself "Am I fixing _existing_ code or adding a new one?" And the
answer here is crystal clear (at least to me).
...
+config SERIAL_8250_DFL
+ tristate "DFL bus driver for Altera 16550 UART"
+ depends on SERIAL_8250 && FPGA_DFL
+ help
+ This option enables support for a Device Feature List (DFL) bus
+ driver for the Altera 16650 UART. One or more Altera 16650 UARTs
+ can be instantiated in a FPGA and then be discovered during
+ enumeration of the DFL bus.
When m, what be the module name?
I see the file, kernel/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_dfl.ko, installed into
/lib/modules/... I also see "alias dfl:t0000f0024* 8250_dfl" in
modules.alias
My point is that user who will run `make menuconfig` will read this and have
no clue after the kernel build if the module was built or not. Look into other
(recent) sections of the Kconfig for drivers in the kernel for how they inform
user about the module name (this more or less standard pattern you just need
to copy'n'paste'n'edit carefully).
I think this should be added:
To compile this driver as a module, chose M here: the
module will be called 8250_dfl.
Looks good to me!
obj-$(CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_FOURPORT) += 8250_fourport.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_ACCENT) += 8250_accent.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_BOCA) += 8250_boca.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_DFL) += 8250_dfl.o
This group of drivers for the 4 UARTs on the board or so, does FPGA belong to
it? (Same Q, btw, for the Kconfig section. And yes, I know that some of the
entries are not properly placed there and in Makefile.)
Since 8250_dfl results in its own module, and my kernel config doesn't have
FOURPORT, ACCENT, nor BOCA, I guess I don't understand the problem.
The Makefile is a bit chaotic, but try to find the sorted (more or less)
group of drivers that are not 4 ports and squeeze your entry there
(I expect somewhere between the LPSS/MID lines).
It will help to sort out that mess in the future.
I will move 8250_dfl between LPSS and MID lines in the Makefile. Should I
move the definition in Kconfig to be between LPSS and MID to be consistent?
D is not ordered if put between L and M, I meant not to literally put it there
but think about it a bit.
Kconfig is another story because it has different approach in ordering (seems
so), try to find the best compromise there.
In the Kconfig, I think the driver fits into the section, Misc.
options/drivers. Within this section, I think SERIAL_8250_DFL should go
before SERIAL_8250_DW to approximate alphabetical ordering. Similarly, I
think 8250_dfl.o should go above 8250_dw.o in the Makefile.
obj-$(CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_EXAR_ST16C554) += 8250_exar_st16c554.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_HUB6) += 8250_hub6.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_FSL) += 8250_fsl.o
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
