[PATCH 01/11] resolve PXA<->8250 serial device address conflict

[Heikki Krogerus]

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 02:26:45PM +0400, Sergei Ianovich wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 11:49 +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:23:58PM +0400, Sergei Ianovich wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 11:02 +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > If drivers/tty/serial/pxa.c was converted to an other probe driver for
> > > > the 8250, this would not be an issue.
> > > 
> > > It seems that my patch is not going to be accepted. However, there is a
> > > device which has both PXA ports and a additional 8250 accent chip. As a
> > > result, there is a device allocation conflict. For the device to be
> > > usable the conflict needs to be resolved.
> > > 
> > > Do you mean that drivers/tty/serial/pxa.c needs to be rewritten to
> > > support lp8x4x special case?
> > 
> > Sorry I was not clear. I was suggesting that drivers/tty/serial/pxa.c
> > would be converted to drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pxa.c since it
> > looks to me like just an other 16x50 compatible UART. That would fix
> > the issue with the name conflict. You would then simply register 8250
> > ports from two probe drivers (drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pxa.c and
> > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_lp8x4x.c).
> > 
> > Depending on the order you register your platform devices (which you
> > decide in your platform code), but let's say the pxa gets registered
> > first and let's say it only has one port. You will then have in your
> > system /dev/ttyS0 for the pxa port and /dev/ttyS[1-4] for the other
> > UART.
> > 
> > I hope I was able to explain what I mean this time :)
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't clear as well. I got it right the first time. You mean
> pxa.c needs to merged into 8250. This will solve the conflict in
> question, and do it the right way. However, this will be a *much* bigger
> patch, and it will affect everyone on pxa.
> 
> Who makes the decision which way to go?

Greg and Russel make this decision. By having the pxa driver simply
register 8250 ports would probable reduce the code. Thats about the
biggest benefit from it.

It would still be something nice to have IMO. Ideally all the
8250/16x50 UARTs should register the ports with 8250_core.c, and not
create complete uart driver on their own.

Br,

-- 
heikki