[PATCH v5 17/17] serial: 8250: Add 8250_acpi driver

[Sunil V L]

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 06:35:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 04:50:57PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 01:09:57PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 03:20:08PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:17:59PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > This driver is not a duplicate of 8250_pnp. It just relies on UART
> > > > enumerated as platform device instead of using PNP interfaces.
> > > > Isn't it better and simple to have an option to enumerate as platform
> > > > device instead of PNP? 
> > > 
> > > Ah, then extract platform driver first from 8250_core.c.
> > > 
> > Let me know if I understand your suggestion correctly. Do you mean call
> > something like serial8250_acpi_init() from serial8250_init() and
> > register the driver directly in serial8250_acpi_init()?
> 
> Extract the code to be 8250_platform.c and update that file.
> I have locally the extraction of RSA code, I will see if I can help you
> with the rest.
> 
Thanks!. That will be helpful. TBH, I don't understand what to do for
extracting the platform driver code. There are already several vendor
specific UART drivers (ex: 8250_fsl.c) which are enumerated as platform
devices. 8250_core.c looks cleanly supporting such drivers which can
register themselves with the core. For generic UART, DT has 8250_of.c
and ACPI has 8250_pnp.c. But 8250_pnp.c comes with baggage of PNP
contract. So, the driver in this patch is similar to vendor specific
drivers to support generic uart devices which are enumerated as platform
device. I can rename 8250_acpi.c to 8250_platform.c if that is better.

Could you please help with a patch even if not compiled so that I can
understand your suggestion better? 

Thanks for your help!
Sunil