From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Iles Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: 8250_dw: fix build error for CONFIG_SERIAL_8250=m Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:24:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20110824152434.GQ23757@pulham.picochip.com> References: <1314169906-12958-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <201108241645.16377.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:59490 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750917Ab1HXPYs (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:24:48 -0400 Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so920260wyg.19 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201108241645.16377.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Jamie Iles , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH Hi Arnd, On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 04:45:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > When go go to such length, I think the approach I initially advocated > (making 8250_dw a standalone platform_driver like of_serial) will be > nicer. For a separate driver, is it okay to make it depend on CONFIG_OF, and only have device tree bindings, or should this still support being registered as a static platform device with platform data? I'm not sure what the consensus is on creating device tree only platform drivers. Thanks, Jamie