On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 03:43:49PM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > On 06.11.23 08:19, Crescent CY Hsieh wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 08:53:18PM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > > > > > > Maybe it would be better to change the meaning of the flag: Instead of being a substitution for > > > SER_RS485_ENABLED, it could be used to mark a special mode. > > > So if both SER_RS485_ENABLED and SER_RS485_MODE_RS422 are set it would mean that we have RS422. > > > > RS422 is not a mode of RS485, so I think using two flags to represent > > them is much more reasonable, even though they are both included in the > > "struct serial_rs485". > > Yes, RS422 is not a mode of RS485, but you are already using the rs485 (and not a rs422) structure. > And treating RS422 as a different mode in the existing code would make things much easier and keep the code > clean. For example you would not have to alter all the code places that check for SER_RS485_ENABLED. > Also SER_RS485_ENABLED and SER_RS422_ENABLED would have the exact same effect, so why use two > different flags, when the effect is the same? Agree, by treating RS422 as a mode, it would make things easier. However, I think, eventually, RS422 might add some configuration flags and should be distinguished from RS485 (Perhaps by adding RS422 structure or revising the name of RS485 structure...) But this should be a future work and require more discussion. Anyway, I will see RS422 as a mode in the next patch. Thanks for the suggestion. --- Sincerely, Crescent CY Hsieh
