linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] serial: exar: split out the exar code from 8250

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:55:53 +0000
From:   Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] serial: exar: split out the exar code from 8250_pci

On Friday 20 January 2017 10:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Sudip Mukherjee
> <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> wrote:
>> From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@...ethink.co.uk>
>>
>> Add the serial driver for the Exar chips. And also register the
>> platform device for the GPIO provided by the Exar chips.
>
> Thanks, this is indeed much cleaner that v6 I saw couple of weeks before!
>
>> Andy,
>> Having 3 setup hooks and assigning everything there was becoming too
>> complicated for me to follow, so i left it as it is. Though some more
>> parts from the board setup has been removed. uart_offset has been
>> completely removed.
>
> Yes, what about baudrate?
> I will check later, but for me it seems other way, i.e. simpler to
> have just 3 setup functions in a row than one is lurking somewhere
> with allocation et al.
>
<snip>
>> +       CONNECT_DEVICE(XR17C154, UART_4_485),
>> +       CONNECT_DEVICE(XR17C158, UART_8_485),
>
> Perhaps it takes few LOC more, but having same defined struct here
> with dedicated ->setup() looks cleaner to me.
>

I think now I understand the 3 different setup functions. Let me try v11 
(hopefully the last one).

Regards
Sudip