On 19.12.2011 04:49, Shawn Guo wrote:

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 06:34:14PM +0100, Dirk Behme wrote:

quoted

Factor out the uart save/restore functionality instead of
having the same code several times in the driver.

Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme<redacted>
CC: Saleem Abdulrasool<redacted>
CC: Sascha Hauer<s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
CC: Fabio Estevam<festevam@gmail.com>
CC: Uwe Kleine-K?nig<redacted>
CC: linux-serial at vger.kernel.org
---
  drivers/tty/serial/imx.c |   38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
  1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
index 163fc90..6a01c2a 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c

@@ -260,6 +260,31 @@ static inline int is_imx21_uart(struct imx_port *sport)
  }

  /*
+ * Save and restore functions for UCR1, UCR2 and UCR3 registers
+ */
+static void imx_console_mode(struct uart_port *port,

Function name imx_console_mode seems not like a couple with
imx_console_restore.  And I guess something like
imx_port_ucrs_save[restore] would be better?

quoted

+			     unsigned int *ucr1,
+			     unsigned int *ucr2,
+			     unsigned int *ucr3)

Can we define something like 'struct imx_port_ucrs' to contains these?

Yes, we could have different function names above and use a struct.

I implemented what Sascha asked for in

http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg144960.html

though:

-- Sascha wrote: --
I'm thinking about:

imx_console_mode(struct uart_port *port, u32 *ucr1, u32 *ucr2, u32 *ucr2);
imx_console_restore(struct uart_port *port, u32 ucr1, u32 ucr2, u32 ucr3);
-- Sascha end --

It seems Shawn proposes

imx_port_ucrs_save(struct uart_port *port, struct *imx_port_ucrs);
imx_port_ucrs_restore(struct uart_port *port, struct *imx_port_ucrs);

(?)

Sascha, Shawn: Could you agree on what we should use?

Once you agreed, I will send an update of both two patches.

Many thanks and best regards

Dirk