Re: [RFC/PATCH 5/6] ARM: shmobile: lager: Enable SCIF0 and SCIF1 serial ports in DT

[Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:47:16PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Thursday 01 May 2014 07:44:57 Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 06:23:40PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 30 April 2014 10:34:12 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:29:23AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 03:02:20AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday 30 April 2014 09:59:56 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:31:45AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > > > > SCIF0 and SCIF1 are used as debug serial ports. Enable them and
> > > > > > > > configure pinmuxing appropriately. We can now remove the clkdev
> > > > > > > > registration hack for SCIF devices from the Lager reference
> > > > > > > > board file.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > As a side effect of switching to DT-based serial port
> > > > > > > > instantiation, ttySC6 and ttySC7 get renamed to ttySC0 and
> > > > > > > > ttySC1. As the device tree source if now shared between lager
> > > > > > > > and lager-reference, we need to update the serial ports in C
> > > > > > > > code as well.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I believe the second paragraph is no longer correct.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Oops, you're right. If no other problem is found with the series,
> > > > > > could you please just drop that paragraph ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes. But could you look at my other comment below?
> > > > 
> > > > I mean yes with the following caveat.
> > > > 
> > > > It seems to me that each of patch 4 and 5 could applied independently
> > > > of the earlier patches in the series. This seems nice.
> > > 
> > > I suppose you mean patches 5 and 6.
> > 
> > Yes, that is what I meant :)
> > 
> > > > It seems to me that patches 3 and 4 depend on patch 2 which in turn
> > > > depends on patch 1. This is less fun. So I was thinking of waiting
> > > > for at least patch 2 to be accepted (by Greg) before applying
> > > > 3 and 4.
> > > 
> > > That's fine with me.
> > > 
> > > > With regards to patch 1. Perhaps it would be best for Greg to take
> > > > that with patch 2?
> > > 
> > > That's fine with me as well.
> > 
> > I wrote the above asuming that patch 2 maintained compatibility with
> > for existing DT nodes (in particular the ones modified in patches 3 and 4).
> > I'd prefer to finalise the discussion regarding patch 2 that before
> > applying 5 and 6 as I see a chance of regression if we are not careful.
> 
> Sure. I'll reply to "RFC/PATCH 2/6] serial: sh-sci: Drop the interface clock", 
> let's discuss that there.

Yes, lets.