On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:36:08AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025, at 10:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 01:40:14PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025, at 13:08, WangYuli wrote: > >> > >> Can you explain why this isn't done as part of > >> drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pnp.c? > > > > I assume you meant 8250_platform.c. PNP is for devices went through legacy PNP > > enumeration, most likely having IOPORT instead of IOMEM. > > No, I meant the 8250_pnp.c file. I am puzzled then. How should it work? PNP ID != ACPI HID that's provided in this patch commit message. On top of that, PNP driver uses _legacy_ PMP bus and infrastructure. > > Recently 8250_platform.c was expanded to cover ACPI IDs and it seems they have > > proper ID allocated for their device, so that's where it seems best to fit. > > I don't think we should expand the use of 8250_platform.c > any more than it is already used for. The ACPI device ID stuff in > there is really only for one specific platform and should probably > get moved out as well, the rest is there for hardwired > "plat_serial8250_port" devices on 25+ year old machines that > predate any type of firmware (pnpbios, acpibios, of) or hardware > (ispnp, pci, ...) autodetection for their uarts. Okay, but I do not see any better fit. Again, PNP is not a fit here or please elaborate how as I'm lost. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
