Hello Andrew,

quoted

* atmel_serial_cleanup_no_at91.patch

I don't know what coding rules you're following...   :)

Funny... I intended to follow these rules: Documentation/CodingStyle
I know I should not do it, but I cannot resist pointing you these
rules (for the fun, and because you ask me to... :-)))
----------------------------------
Chapter 6: Functions
Functions should be short and sweet, and do just one thing.  They should
fit on one or two screenfuls of text (the ISO/ANSI screen size is 80x24,
as we all know), and do one thing and do that well.
----------------------------------
For now it is not absolutely necessary, but the routine become quite
long when the DMA patch comes in.

AND:
----------------------------------
Chapter 15: The inline disease
A reasonable rule of thumb is to not put inline at functions that have more
than 3 lines of code in them.
+ Often people argue that adding inline to functions that are static and used
only once is always a win since there is no space tradeoff. While this is
technically correct, ***gcc is capable of inlining these automatically without
help***, and the maintenance issue of removing the inline when a second user
appears outweighs the potential value of the hint that tells gcc to do
something it would have done anyway.
----------------------------------

The code you've moved out of the interrupt handler should probably now
be marked as inline.

Because I know it is common practice in the kernel, I attached 3 new
patches to inline these :-))
To begin with, I made the cleanup patch separate, because otherwise it
would make the split-up quite unclear to follow, and
scripts/checkpatch.pl generated a huge list of violations on this
file.

BTW: I am currently generating a re-diff for the DMA patch so that it
can be applied on top of this set to make this patch queue easier to
handle.


Regards,

Remy