On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:28:00PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:

Hi Tomeu,

Am 12.01.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso [off-list ref]:

quoted

On 11 May 2015 at 03:56, NeilBrown [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi all,
here is version 4 of my "UART slave device" patch set, previously
known as "tty slave devices".

Hi Neil,

do you (or someone else) have plans to continue this work in the short
or medium term?

yes, there is something in our upstreaming pipeline. This one works for us on top of 4.4.0:

<http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-kernel.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/work/hns/misc/w2sg-tty-slave2-v4>

There is one point still to be solved: the exact style of the DT bindings.

We have an idea how a driver can implement two different styles (child node AND phandle)
so that it is up to the DTS developer to use the one that best fits into the existing DTS.

From my perspective as a binding maintainer, and as I stated before, the

child node approach made the most sense and was most consistent with the
way we handle other devices.

I don't understand what the benefit of supporting two styles of
description would be, relative to the maintenance cost. Nor do I
understand your fixation with the phandle approach, given it has been
repeatedly disagreed with by binding maintainers.

Thanks,
Mark.