Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] UART slave device bus

Hi Greg,

Am 18.08.2016 um 12:57 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman [off-list ref]:

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:54:15PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:

quoted

Hi Pavel,

quoted

Am 18.08.2016 um 12:47 schrieb Pavel Machek [off-list ref]:

quoted

Thereof 4 files, ~260 changes w/o gps demo and documentation/bindings.

So what do you use for the serial devices? platform_device was vetoed
for that purpose by Greg.

device tree?

No.

? Sorry, but each time Pavel jumps in, he just copies half of a statement and
any reply gets misunderstood.

I did not even mention platform_device, still you disagree to device tree for the
*slave driver*?

This patchset from Rob is the way I have been saying it should be done
for years now.  Yes, a "bus" takes up more boilerplate code (blame me
for that), but overall, it makes the drivers simpler,

Sorry, but I don't see how Rob's approach makes it simpler to write a device driver
than our original proposal, which btw is also sort of a bus and I see only some implementation
differences.

Except that IMHO Rob's approach lacks functions we need (which maybe can added).

and fits into the
rest of the kernel driver/device model much better.

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus