On 22/04/2024 22:35, Konstantin P. wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 23:11 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 22. 04. 24, 14:00, Konstantin P. wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:30 AM Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20. 04. 24, 20:22, Konstantin Pugin wrote:
>>>>> From: Konstantin Pugin <ria.freelander@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> XR20M1172 register set is mostly compatible with SC16IS762, but it has
>>>>> a support for additional division rates of UART with special DLD
>> register.
>>>>> So, add handling this register by appropriate devicetree bindings.
>>>> ...
>>>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sc16is7xx.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sc16is7xx.c
>>>> ...
>>>>> @@ -555,18 +578,43 @@ static bool sc16is7xx_regmap_noinc(struct device
>> *dev, unsigned int reg)
>>>>> return reg == SC16IS7XX_RHR_REG;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static bool sc16is7xx_has_dld(struct device *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct sc16is7xx_port *s = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (s->devtype == &xr20m1172_devtype)
>>>>> + return true;
>>>>> + return false;
>>>>
>>>> :) so this should simply be:
>>>>
>>>> return s->devtype == &xr20m1172_devtype;
>>>>
>>> I especially want to avoid this construction, because it will lead to
>>> idea than we does not have other
>>> DLD-capable UARTS, which is simply not true, there is, for example,
>>> XR20M1280 UART, which has roughly the same register set
>>> (
>> https://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/445109/EXAR/XR20M1280.html
>> ).
>>> I simply do not have other devices, so I do not
>>> want to risk sending untested patches upstream.
>>
>> Sorry, what?
>>
>> --
>> js
>> suse labs
>>
>
> I do not wish those function to be less generic than I did. If you think
> this change is required - I will change. But if it would be okay without a
> change - I prefer to stay as is.
The code does exactly the same, so what do you mean "less generic"? What
does it even mean?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
