From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Feng Tang Subject: Re: [spi-devel-general] [RFC][PATCH] serial: spi: add spi-uart driver for Maxim 3110 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:49:06 +0800 Message-ID: <20100225154906.7d3ac9f1@feng-i7> References: <20091229222006.1ddb28a4@feng-desktop> <73BDC2BA3DA0BD47BAAEE12383D407EF303E943D@shzsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1262112228.28396.93.camel@justakiss.home.at> <201002242047.14308.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Erwin Authried , Baruch Siach , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , spi-devel-list , Andrew Morton , "alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" To: David Brownell Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201002242047.14308.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:47:13 +0800 David Brownell wrote: > On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Erwin Authried wrote: > > I think there's no need for a MAX3100 **and** a MAX3110 driver, > > this is just confusing. The MAX3110 driver is identical to the > > MAX3100 from the software view, it is simply a MAX3100 with > > transceivers added to the chip. If there's any improvement, that > > should be merged into the existing MAX3100 driver. > > Assuming that's true ... who will resolve the issue? > Hi David, I've answered Erwin's comments before in v1 submission cycle, following is the quote: "I agree there should not be 2 drivers cover 1 family of HW, so this is a RFC. I've thinked about merge with current 3100 code, but it depends on one char per spi_transfer, while my driver relys on batch data transfer for efficiency. Another key point is the console, SPI UART can't be directly accessed by CPU, so every spi_transfer will go through tasklet/workqueue, which makes supporting printk a big part of my driver." I really did consider about that, but has no good clue, so I think better to shape my driver first. Thanks, Feng