Re: [PATCH 2/2] serial: 8250: Add support for 8250/16550 as MFD function

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:47:41AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2019, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> 
> > Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 07 May 2019, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> > >
> > >> Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >> 
> > >> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> The serial8250-mfd driver is for adding 8250/16550 UART ports as functions
> > >> >> to an MFD driver.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> When calling mfd_add_device(), platform_data should be a pointer to a
> > >> >> struct plat_serial8250_port, with proper settings like .flags, .type,
> > >> >> .iotype, .regshift and .uartclk.  Memory (or ioport) and IRQ should be
> > >> >> passed as cell resources.
> > >> >
> > >> > What?  No, please!
> > >> >
> > >> > If you *must* create a whole driver just to be able to use
> > >> > platform_*() helpers (which I don't think you should), then please
> > >> > call it something else.  This doesn't have anything to do with MFD.
> > >> 
> > >> True.
> > >> 
> > >> I really don't think it is a good idea to create a whole driver just to
> > >> be able to use platform_get_*() helpers.  And if I am forced to do this,
> > >> because I am unable to convince Andy to improve the standard serial8250
> > >> driver to support that, it should be called MFD.  The driver would be
> > >
> > > I assume you mean "shouldn't"?
> > 
> > Of-course.
> > 
> > >> generally usable for all usecases where platform_get_*() works.
> > >> 
> > >> I don't have any idea what to call such a driver.  It really would just
> > >> be a fork of the current serial8250 driver, just allowing use of
> > >> platform_get_*(), supporting exactly the same hardware.
> > >> 
> > >> I am still hoping that we can find a way to improve serial8250 to be
> > >> usable in these cases.
> > >
> > > Me too.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to convince Andy to accept
> > something like that.
> 
> Andy is not he Maintainer.
> 
> What are Greg and Jiri's opinions?

I've been ignoring all of this at the moment because of the 5.2-rc merge
window.  I'll look at it after -rc1 is out.

thanks,

greg k-h