Hi Greg,
> On Mar 23, 2021, at 2:24 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:42:09PM -0800, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
>> +static struct cortina_uart_port *cortina_uart_ports;
>
> Why is this not a per-device pointer?
>
>> +static void __exit cortina_uart_exit(void)
>> +{
>> + platform_driver_unregister(&serial_cortina_driver);
>> + uart_unregister_driver(&cortina_uart_driver);
>> + kfree(cortina_uart_ports);
>
> Should not need to free this here, it should be tied to the device, not
> the driver.
Would it be possible to provide a reference to an example
of a good way to do it.
>
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +module_init(cortina_uart_init);
>> +module_exit(cortina_uart_exit);
>> +
>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Cortina-Access Inc.");
>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION(" Cortina-Access UART driver");
>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/serial_core.h
>> b/include/uapi/linux/serial_core.h
>> index 62c2204..1931892 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/serial_core.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/serial_core.h
>> @@ -277,4 +277,7 @@
>> /* Freescale LINFlexD UART */
>> #define PORT_LINFLEXUART 122
>>
>> +/* Cortina-Access UART */
>> +#define PORT_CORTINA_ACCESS 123
>
> Also, no need for this, right? I would prefer to not add new ids if at
> all possible.
Could you explain why these are no longer required and what has
been done in the tty design to make this obsolete?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
