[RFC PATCH 1/1] drivers: introduce ARM SBSA generic UART driver
From: andre.przywara@arm.com (Andre Przywara)
Date: 2014-09-05 14:28:09
Also in:
linux-serial, lkml
On 02/09/14 20:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 12:38:23 Rob Herring wrote:quoted
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 08:20:53 Rob Herring wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
This alone is not okay. There is no such implementation of hardware.But the SBSA explicitly allows this. I don't know of any vendor who just implements the subset, but I've been told that this has been asked for.To use baudrate as an example, that must be configurable somehow either with pl011 registers or in a vendor specific way. I suppose you could do an actual implementation with all those things hardcoded in the design, but that seems unlikely.Why does the baudrate need to be configurable? I think it's completely reasonable to specify a console port that has a fixed (as in the OS must not care) rate, and that can be implemented either as a UART with a programmable rate or as a set of registers that directly talks to a remote system management device over whatever hardware protocol they choose.Sure. It is also completely reasonable that baudrate is configurable and vendors can implement it however they choose since the SBSA does not specify it. IIRC, the enabling and disabling bits are not specified either. Not having configurability is simply one variation on possible implementations.It's not obvious to me though that we are served better by a pl011 driver that allows any possible subset of the features, rather than having the existing driver for pl011, and a new driver for the sbsa subset, which then won't allow any of the optional features. Yes, there is some duplication, but a driver for this kind of dumb console port should be doable in very little code, at least less than the proposed implementation.
I see your point, but as long as this means to introduce another serial prefix I would rather avoid it. As said in the other mail, I think the integration into PL011 does not look too bad, so we can discuss again this when I post the code later. Cheers, Andre.