From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751525AbdJTMVj (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:21:39 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:56980 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751264AbdJTMVh (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:21:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:21:44 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Rob Herring Cc: Johan Hovold , Jiri Slaby , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] serdev: ttyport: enforce tty-driver open() requirement Message-ID: <20171020122144.GA30326@kroah.com> References: <20171016130620.5404-1-johan@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:07:20AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Johan Hovold wrote: > > The tty-driver open routine is mandatory, but the serdev > > tty-port-controller implementation did not treat it as such and would > > instead fall back to calling tty_port_open() directly. > > The idea was to eventually get rid of the tty_struct dependency and > only depend on tty_port. That's very invasive though and needs various > pieces of tty_struct to move into tty_port. > > Of course, tty_port_open itself would have to change as well, so this > change doesn't really matter. So are you acking these patches? confused, greg k-h