All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>
To: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
Cc: G Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@linaro.org>,
	Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>,
	linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>,
	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] serial: amba-pl011: add ACPI support to AMBA probe
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:38:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <569420EE.5060006@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160106110350.GB3599@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk>

Graeme Gregory wrote:
>> >
>> >So with this patch, what is the difference between sbsa_uart_probe and
>> >pl011_probe?  Shouldn't the patch also remove sbsa_uart_probe?
>> >
> One is for amba_device and one is for platform_device and one maintainer
> indicated displeasure at platfrom device being in an AMBA driver.

Ok, I'm still a little confused, but it sounds to me like your patch 
should have also removed sbsa_uart_probe().

With your patches applied, under what circumstance would 
sbsa_uart_probe() still be called?  The amba-pl011.c driver already 
probes on ARMH0011, so shouldn't that be removed, to avoid a double probe?


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: timur@codeaurora.org (Timur Tabi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 3/3] serial: amba-pl011: add ACPI support to AMBA probe
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:38:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <569420EE.5060006@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160106110350.GB3599@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk>

Graeme Gregory wrote:
>> >
>> >So with this patch, what is the difference between sbsa_uart_probe and
>> >pl011_probe?  Shouldn't the patch also remove sbsa_uart_probe?
>> >
> One is for amba_device and one is for platform_device and one maintainer
> indicated displeasure at platfrom device being in an AMBA driver.

Ok, I'm still a little confused, but it sounds to me like your patch 
should have also removed sbsa_uart_probe().

With your patches applied, under what circumstance would 
sbsa_uart_probe() still be called?  The amba-pl011.c driver already 
probes on ARMH0011, so shouldn't that be removed, to avoid a double probe?

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-11 21:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-12-23 14:19 [PATCH v4 0/3] Add AMBA bus probing support to ACPI Aleksey Makarov
2015-12-23 14:19 ` Aleksey Makarov
2015-12-23 14:19 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] ACPI: amba bus probing support Aleksey Makarov
2015-12-23 14:19   ` Aleksey Makarov
2015-12-23 18:49   ` Andy Shevchenko
2015-12-23 18:49     ` Andy Shevchenko
2015-12-23 18:49     ` Andy Shevchenko
2016-01-03 13:36   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-03 13:36     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-12-23 14:19 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] ACPI: scan add in amba probing Aleksey Makarov
2015-12-23 14:19   ` Aleksey Makarov
2015-12-23 14:19 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] serial: amba-pl011: add ACPI support to AMBA probe Aleksey Makarov
2015-12-23 14:19   ` Aleksey Makarov
2016-01-04 23:13   ` Timur Tabi
2016-01-04 23:13     ` Timur Tabi
2016-01-05  8:55     ` G Gregory
2016-01-05  8:55       ` G Gregory
2016-01-05 16:23       ` Timur Tabi
2016-01-05 16:23         ` Timur Tabi
2016-01-06 11:03         ` Graeme Gregory
2016-01-06 11:03           ` Graeme Gregory
2016-01-11 21:38           ` Timur Tabi [this message]
2016-01-11 21:38             ` Timur Tabi
2016-01-03  0:39 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] Add AMBA bus probing support to ACPI Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-03  0:39   ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=569420EE.5060006@codeaurora.org \
    --to=timur@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=aleksey.makarov@linaro.org \
    --cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
    --cc=gg@slimlogic.co.uk \
    --cc=graeme.gregory@linaro.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jslaby@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=shannon.zhao@linaro.org \
    --cc=vz@mleia.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.