[PATCH v2] tty/serial: at91: restore dynamic driver binding

Romain Izard romain.izard.pro at gmail.com
Thu Feb 25 09:08:19 PST 2016


2016-02-25 17:09 GMT+01:00 Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:01:07AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Le 25/02/2016 10:23, Romain Izard a écrit :
>> > In commit c39dfebc7798956fd2140ae6321786ff35da30c3, the modular
>> > support code for atmel_serial was removed, as the driver cannot be
>> > built as a module. Because no use case was proposed, the dynamic
>> > driver binding support was removed as well.
>> >
>> > The atmel_serial driver can manage up to 7 serial controllers,
>> > which are multiplexed with other functions. For example, in the
>> > Atmel SAMA5D2, the Flexcom controllers can work as USART, SPI or
>> > I2C controllers, and on all Atmel devices serial lines can be
>> > reconfigured as GPIOs.
>> >
>> > My use case uses GPIOs to transfer a firmware update using a custom
>> > protocol on the lines used as a serial port during the normal life
>> > of the device. If it is not possible to unbind the atmel_serial
>> > driver, the GPIO lines remain reserved and prevent this case from
>> > working.
>> >
>> > This patch reinstates the atmel_serial_remove function, and fixes
>> > it as it failed to clear the "clk" field on removal, triggering an
>> > oops when a device was bound again after being unbound.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Romain Izard <romain.izard.pro at gmail.com>
>>
>> Even if you didn't follow my advice for not including unneeded
>> changes in of the last patch chunk, there's no use delaying the patch
>> just for this. So, here is my:
>
> Yes there is, I'm not going to take this, Romain please fix it
> properly.

Are we really arguing about the alignement of of_match_table in the
platform_driver initializer?

Among other things, Paul's patch changed the alignment to match the
width of the "suppress_bind_attrs" member. As I simply used 'git revert
-p' to revert the parts of the patch that bothered me, the alignment
returned to what it was before.

Or am I missing something else ?

-- 
Romain Izard



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list