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: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:38:54 -0600 Message-ID: <569420EE.5060006@codeaurora.org> References: <1450880383-29560-1-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> <1450880383-29560-4-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> <568BEDEC.5010101@codeaurora.org> <20160106110350.GB3599@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160106110350.GB3599@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Graeme Gregory Cc: G Gregory , Russell King , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Andy Shevchenko , lkml , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Aleksey Makarov , Shannon Zhao , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby , Vladimir Zapolskiy , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org 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?