Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:39:07 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] serial: 8250: add gpio support to exar | From | Andy Shevchenko <> |
| |
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:09:08PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Sudip Mukherjee >> <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Exar XR17V352/354/358 chips have 16 multi-purpose inputs/outputs which >> > can be controlled using gpio interface. >> > Add support to use these pins. >> >> + Peter Hung. >> >> Seems Fintek HW is going similar way you, guys, have to decide how to >> proceed in general. I like this way Sudip made here, though I still >> few comments below. > > Just had a look at the Fintek patch. Interestingly high baudrate was our > next plan. :) > >> >> First of all, can we split it to two patches like cooking GPIO driver >> first, then extend Exar piece of serial driver? >> >> I also would like to vote for splitting out first Exar parts from >> 8250_pci like Peter did for Fintek. > > Then maybe instead of splitting out if we have the provision of high > baudrate in 8250_pci? And the way I have done, it is just a matter of few > function calls from 8250_pci in case the hardware is present. So then, > what may be the advantage of splitting out?
+ Heikki. When we considered what to do with extension to 8250_mid (at that time it was just a set of functions in the 8250_pci) we decided not to blow up 8250_pci anymore. At that time it was something like 6k+ LOCs. One of the example is how sdhci is split (2 level scheme: core <- glue bus driver <- particular hw). This might not work for 8250. But I'm thinking something like core <- specific hw core <- bus driver. Heikki, do you have your vision about this?
> But now the question is should I split out? What advantage > will be there in splitting out?
You already asked it above.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
|  |