On Tue, 14 May 2019, Esben Haabendal wrote: > Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> writes: > > > On Tue, 07 May 2019, Esben Haabendal wrote: > > > >> Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Esben Haabendal wrote: > >> > > >> >> The serial8250-mfd driver is for adding 8250/16550 UART ports as > >> >> functions > >> >> to an MFD driver. > >> >> > >> >> When calling mfd_add_device(), platform_data should be a pointer to a > >> >> struct plat_serial8250_port, with proper settings like .flags, .type, > >> >> .iotype, .regshift and .uartclk. Memory (or ioport) and IRQ should be > >> >> passed as cell resources. > >> > > >> > What? No, please! > >> > > >> > If you *must* create a whole driver just to be able to use > >> > platform_*() helpers (which I don't think you should), then please > >> > call it something else. This doesn't have anything to do with MFD. > >> > >> True. > >> > >> I really don't think it is a good idea to create a whole driver just to > >> be able to use platform_get_*() helpers. And if I am forced to do this, > >> because I am unable to convince Andy to improve the standard serial8250 > >> driver to support that, it should be called MFD. The driver would be > > > > I assume you mean "shouldn't"? > > Of-course. > > >> generally usable for all usecases where platform_get_*() works. > >> > >> I don't have any idea what to call such a driver. It really would just > >> be a fork of the current serial8250 driver, just allowing use of > >> platform_get_*(), supporting exactly the same hardware. > >> > >> I am still hoping that we can find a way to improve serial8250 to be > >> usable in these cases. > > > > Me too. > > Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to convince Andy to accept > something like that.
Andy is not he Maintainer. What are Greg and Jiri's opinions? > I might have to do this out-of-tree :( Well that would suck! -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
