Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1321912 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/3] 8250: Split Fintek PCIE to UART to independent file

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/3] 8250: Split Fintek PCIE to UART to independent file Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 18:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 0/3] 8250: Split Fintek PCIE to UART to independent file Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2016-01-29 19:40 +0100

#1321912 — Re: [PATCH 0/3] 8250: Split Fintek PCIE to UART to independent file

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:44:16PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Sudip Mukherjee
> <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:24:36PM +0800, Peter Hung wrote:
> >> Hi Sudip,
> >>
> >> Sudip Mukherjee 於 2016/1/20 下午 02:22 寫道:
> >> >On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:59:28AM +0800, Peter Hung wrote:
> >>
> >> >But my personal opinion, if we move out the serial port related code
> >> >into a new driver (a new Kconfig symbol) userspace of many system will
> >> >break if this new symbol is not enabled by the distributions. But in the
> >> >way I have done the new symbol needs to be enabled only if the user
> >> >wants to use the GPIO capability. If that is not enabled GPIO cannot be
> >> >used but it will never break the serial port related code for them.
> >> >I think we should give a thought to that before splitting out the codes
> >> >from 8250_pci.
> >>
> >> I agree with your opinion. I'm trying to implement GPIO with 2 ways,
> >> One is like yours, add platform_device with in 8250_pci.c and implement
> >> GPIOLIB platform driver with in 'driver/gpio", and the other is trying
> >> split out from 8250_pci.c to MFD.
> >>
> >> In my personal opinion, the first method is less impact with compatible
> >> old system.
> >
> > Looks like no one else is in support of our opinion. Fair enough, I will
> > split out the related code from 8250_pci and create the MFD driver this
> > weekend for my hardware.
> 
> Yeah, MFD looks preferable.
> 
> Btw, don't forget to backlist your devices in 8250_pci since they
> quite possible provide a PCI class which is used by 8250_pci driver
> for default enumeration.

One doubt. If I have understood correctly the main reason you have asked
me to split the code out of 8250_pci so that the size reduces. But
pci_xr17v35x_setup() is also used by another card which has
PCI_VENDOR_ID_COMMTECH. So even if I create a separate file for exar cards,
almost identical function will still remain in 8250_pci.

regards
sudip

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1321989

On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 23:08 +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:44:16PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Sudip Mukherjee
> > <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:24:36PM +0800, Peter Hung wrote:
> > > > Hi Sudip,
> > > > 
> > > > Sudip Mukherjee 於 2016/1/20 下午 02:22 寫道:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:59:28AM +0800, Peter Hung wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > But my personal opinion, if we move out the serial port
> > > > > related code
> > > > > into a new driver (a new Kconfig symbol) userspace of many
> > > > > system will
> > > > > break if this new symbol is not enabled by the distributions.
> > > > > But in the
> > > > > way I have done the new symbol needs to be enabled only if
> > > > > the user
> > > > > wants to use the GPIO capability. If that is not enabled GPIO
> > > > > cannot be
> > > > > used but it will never break the serial port related code for
> > > > > them.
> > > > > I think we should give a thought to that before splitting out
> > > > > the codes
> > > > > from 8250_pci.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree with your opinion. I'm trying to implement GPIO with 2
> > > > ways,
> > > > One is like yours, add platform_device with in 8250_pci.c and
> > > > implement
> > > > GPIOLIB platform driver with in 'driver/gpio", and the other is
> > > > trying
> > > > split out from 8250_pci.c to MFD.
> > > > 
> > > > In my personal opinion, the first method is less impact with
> > > > compatible
> > > > old system.
> > > 
> > > Looks like no one else is in support of our opinion. Fair enough,
> > > I will
> > > split out the related code from 8250_pci and create the MFD
> > > driver this
> > > weekend for my hardware.
> > 
> > Yeah, MFD looks preferable.
> > 
> > Btw, don't forget to backlist your devices in 8250_pci since they
> > quite possible provide a PCI class which is used by 8250_pci driver
> > for default enumeration.
> 
> One doubt. If I have understood correctly the main reason you have
> asked
> me to split the code out of 8250_pci so that the size reduces. But
> pci_xr17v35x_setup() is also used by another card which has
> PCI_VENDOR_ID_COMMTECH. So even if I create a separate file for exar
> cards,
> almost identical function will still remain in 8250_pci.

For me looks like re-branded Exar chip (Exar is a real chip vendor,
right?). Even names fall in different pattern.


Also,
        {       PCI_VENDOR_ID_COMMTECH,
PCI_DEVICE_ID_COMMTECH_4222PCIE,
                PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID,
                0,
                0, pbn_exar_XR17V352 },
^^^^!


Move those IDs to your driver as well.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web