From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] serial: amba-pl011: add ACPI support to AMBA probe Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:23:08 -0600 Message-ID: <568BEDEC.5010101@codeaurora.org> References: <1450880383-29560-1-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> <1450880383-29560-4-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: G Gregory Cc: Aleksey Makarov , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Russell King , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andy Shevchenko , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , lkml , Vladimir Zapolskiy , Shannon Zhao , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org G Gregory wrote: >> >I'm confused by this patch. We already have code like this in >> >tty-next, in the form of sbsa_uart_probe(): >> > >> >https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/tty/+/tty-next/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c#2553 >> > > Because Russell expressed unhappiness at that code existing. So this > is an alternative method to do same thing with ACPI. FYI, this patch doesn't apply on tty-next as-is, so it would need to be updated anyway. Then again, considering the latest drama with that driver, who knows what it will look like? > If the "arm,sbsa-uart" id was added to drivers/of/platform.c as an > AMBA id then the same could be done for DT as well. > > Ultimately this patch is optional depending on maintainers opinion! So with this patch, what is the difference between sbsa_uart_probe and pl011_probe? Shouldn't the patch also remove sbsa_uart_probe?