2016-03-22 9:55 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi [off-list ref]:

Jun Nie wrote:

quoted

2016-03-22 4:39 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi [off-list ref]:

quoted

Jun Nie wrote:

quoted

@@ -2570,9 +2608,17 @@ static int pl011_uart_plat_probe(struct

platform_device *pdev)
         if (!uap)
                 return -ENOMEM;

+       uap->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
+       if (IS_ERR(uap->clk))
+               return PTR_ERR(uap->clk);
+

I don't this is supposed to be part of your patch, and it breaks my ACPI
platform anyway.  Where did it come from?

Is it OK to move to device tree part, I mean if (pdev->dev.of_node)
clause? It is part of my patch, I am not aware ACPI requirement on
this.

But this is not restricted to the ZTE platform.  Your patch says, "compete
support to ZTE uart" (maybe you should reword that to "add support for ZTE
UARTs").  However, this change affects ALL platforms. If you move it to the
device tree part, it will affect ALL device tree platforms.  That's not
"adding ZTE support".

That's a fair comment. I suppose all platform need to enable clock for
the device. For device tree case, we need these code for clock
enabling. For ACPI case, it may be handled automatically. If you agree
my opinion, I will move these lines to patch 1. Please correct me if I
am wrong.

Jun

--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.