On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:48:49PM +0200, Evgeny Kolesnikov wrote:
> On 23/07/2019 03:56, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:53:00PM +0200, Evgeny Kolesnikov wrote:
> >>
> >>The difference between uart-poweroff and qnap-poweroff is small, but
> >>important:
> >>uart-poweroff is able to send to an MCU a command of arbitrary length, and
> >>the command
> >>itself is defined in a DTS file for a specific device/board, thus making
> >>this driver
> >>applicable to wider range of devices.
> >
> >There is a lot of replicated code here, and in the original
> >qnap-poweroff.c driver. Please consolidate it by extending the current
> >driver. It should be easy to add a new compatible string, and turn
> >power_off_cfg.cmd into an array.
>
> Hi, Andrew.
>
> I've considered extending qnap driver, but I have some doubts about this
> approach.
>
> First of all there is only a poweroff counterpart. As there is no
> qnap-restart driver, what should I do with uart-restart? Is it OK to have
> xxx-restart-poweroff driver (never saw anything like that)?
Hi Evgeny
There are a few options. You can refactor all the code into a library
and small drivers which wrap around the library. Or you can make the
driver handle both, using the compatible string to determine which it
should do.
> While I can add cmd as a parameter to qnap driver (having it converted
> into an array) it should be optional as original qnap relies on two
> hardcoded values for its devices.
That is not what i meant. You can make the current code more generic
by changing the single byte in power_off_cfg to an array. DT should
describe the hardware, not bytes you poke into registers. So it is
perfectly valid to have the bytes hard coded in the driver.
Andrew
