From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Hurley Subject: Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/3] tty slave device support - version 3. Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 08:05:59 -0400 Message-ID: <554A03A7.2000504@hurleysoftware.com> References: <20150318055437.21025.13990.stgit@notabene.brown> <55492001.30806@hurleysoftware.com> <20150506092738.GB4508@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller" , Pavel Machek Cc: List for communicating with real GTA04 owners , NeilBrown , Mark Rutland , One Thousand Gnomes , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sebastian Reichel , Grant Likely , Jiri Slaby , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 05/06/2015 07:50 AM, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > No, I am not playing devil=E2=80=99s advocate (which would imply that= I am doing this > for fun to tease the dog), but I feel I have to be the advocate of fu= ture board > designers who want to easily import an existing board DT and overwrit= e device > tree nodes to describe design changes, i.e. what slave device is conn= ected to > which uart. I dont' see a big distinction at the DTS source level, so your concern = is wrt binary dtbs? > At least in this regard, the alternatives are really differently easy= to handle. >=20 > And, the alternatives have some influence how a tty driver and a slav= e device > driver is designed. So that is for me the root question, before discu= ssing (some) > implementation details. I would expect _no_ impact on the tty driver; have I overlooked somethi= ng? Regards, Peter Hurley