[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160911221424.2d56682a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 22:14:24 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] tty: tty_struct dependency clean-ups
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 17:37:01 -0500
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> This patch series removes or prepares to remove some of the dependencies
> on tty_struct within tty_port drivers. This will allow using tty_ports
> directly for so called UART slave devices.
You can create a tty_struct kernel side with the two tiny changes I
posted before. Why do you want to do invasive tree wide changes when you
can do simple ones ?
> Next up after this are moving some functions to the tty_port ops. I've
> got some WIP patches for some of that, but nothing ready to send out
> quite yet.
I think before this lot happens you need to decide where these structures
belong. Termios and termios_locked for example could live in the tty_port
as the physical tty is incapable of having multiple sets of terminal data
at once.
Really though this looks to me like *MASSIVE* churn for now purpose.
Create a tty_struct kernel side, and use that, the needed patch is then
tiny.
so IMHO NAK
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists