On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:18:21AM +0900, Hector Martin wrote:

On 08/02/2021 19.34, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

On 2021-02-07 09:12, Hector Martin 'marcan' wrote:

quoted

On 06/02/2021 22.15, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

Do you actually need a new port type here? Looking at the driver
itself, it is mainly used to work out the IRQ model. Maybe introducing
a new irq_type field in the port structure would be better than
exposing this to userspace (which should see something that is exactly
the same as a S3C UART).

Well... every S3C variant already has its own port type here.

#define PORT_S3C2410    55
#define PORT_S3C2440    61
#define PORT_S3C2400    67
#define PORT_S3C2412    73
#define PORT_S3C6400    84

If we don't introduce a new one, which one should we pretend to be? :)

Pick one! :D

*queries /dev/urandom* :-)

quoted

quoted

I agree that it might make sense to merge all of these into one,
though; I don't know what the original reason for splitting them out
is. But now that they're part of the userspace API, this might not be
a good idea. Though, unsurprisingly, some googling suggests there are
zero users of these defines in userspace.

I don't think we can do that, but I don't think we should keep adding
to this unless there is a very good reason. Greg would know, I expect.

Greg, what do you think? Add more PORT_ UART types for Samsung variants, or
overload one of the existing ones and deal with it in the driver?

I HATE adding new PORT_ types, as I am almost positive no one uses them,
but as they are in the uapi files, we can't delete them.

So, just use an existing one, why do you want a new one?  If you don't
have a userspace tool that requires it, don't bother.

Just use PORT_8250 and be done with it.  I should force all new drivers
to use that as well :)

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel