[PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core

[Sergei Ianovich]

On Sun, 2015-12-20 at 00:12 +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Sergei Ianovich <ynvich at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, 2015-12-19 at 20:31 +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> > > Sergei Ianovich <ynvich at gmail.com> writes:
> > > Thanks for spotting this. This is caused by a change in the latest
> > > > version of the patch (SERIAL_8250_PXA instead of SERIAL_PXA).
> > > > This
> > > > change could be reverted.
> > > Actually I'm against the revert.
> > > The name change looks very good to me, please keep it.
> > 
> > Is it worth adding an error if CONFIG_SERIAL_PXA is defined?
> I don't think so.

...

> 
> > I understand that people are afraid of taking this patch. If it
> > starts
> > causing troubles at runtime, it will be difficult to diagnose. There
> > will be no console for most people. So it is probably good idea to
> > fail
> > at boot time.
> Who are "the people" ? 

I think "the people" are at least Greg Kroah-Hartman and Russell King.

> If it's about something already written in a mailing
> list, please point me to it so that it can help me think about it.

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-December/2167
73.html

I can explain why I think so. Greg acked the patch, but hasn't merged it
since then. He has good reasons for this most probably. Russell's
comment pointed by the link seems to be the reason.

I think the problem raised by Russell could be addressed. My best guess
is compile time error, despite your comment above.

I have one more plan. For transition period, we can introduce a
temporary Kconfig option SERIAL_8250_PXA_OFF, and fail at build time if
neither SERIAL_8250_PXA nor SERIAL_8250_PXA_OFF is set. This way all
interested parties will be notified of this driver update.