[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023073158-ungraded-carefully-6af3@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:14:15 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] serial: core: Fix serial core controller port
name to show controller id
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 12:07:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 08:42:12AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > We are missing the serial core controller id for the serial core port
> > name. Let's fix the issue for sane sysfs output, and to avoid issues
> > addressing serial ports later on.
> >
> > And as we're now showing the controller id, the "ctrl" and "port" prefix
> > for the DEVNAME become useless, we can just drop them. Let's standardize on
> > DEVNAME:0 for controller name, where 0 is the controller id. And
> > DEVNAME:0.0 for port name, where 0.0 are the controller id and port id.
> >
> > This makes the sysfs output nicer, on qemu for example:
> >
> > $ ls /sys/bus/serial-base/devices
> > 00:04:0 serial8250:0 serial8250:0.2
> > 00:04:0.0 serial8250:0.1 serial8250:0.3
>
> Hmm... Why 0.0 is absent for serial8250?
> Btw, what was before this patch there?
> And maybe ls -l will look more informative?
>
> > Fixes: 84a9582fd203 ("serial: core: Start managing serial controllers to enable runtime PM")
> > Reported-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Andy, I kept your Reviewed-by although I updated the device naming and
> > description, does the patch still look OK to you?
>
> Looks okay, but I have a question above.
Can I get an ack for this if you are ok with these fixes?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists