lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v12 0/6] Driver for at91 usart in spi mode
On 11/09/2018 10:33:56+0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2018, Radu Pirea wrote:
> > Radu Pirea (6):
> > MAINTAINERS: add at91 usart mfd driver
> > dt-bindings: add binding for atmel-usart in SPI mode
> > mfd: at91-usart: added mfd driver for usart
> > MAINTAINERS: add at91 usart spi driver
> > spi: at91-usart: add driver for at91-usart as spi
> > tty/serial: atmel: change the driver to work under at91-usart mfd
> >
> > .../bindings/{serial => mfd}/atmel-usart.txt | 25 +-
> > MAINTAINERS | 16 +
> > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 9 +
> > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/mfd/at91-usart.c | 71 +++
> > drivers/spi/Kconfig | 8 +
> > drivers/spi/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/spi/spi-at91-usart.c | 432 ++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/tty/serial/Kconfig | 1 +
> > drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c | 42 +-
> > include/dt-bindings/mfd/at91-usart.h | 17 +
> > 11 files changed, 606 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/{serial => mfd}/atmel-usart.txt (76%)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/at91-usart.c
> > create mode 100644 drivers/spi/spi-at91-usart.c
> > create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/mfd/at91-usart.h
>
> Seeing as this patch-set has caused some issues this morning, I took
> the liberty to peruse back into its history to figure out where things
> started to go wrong. I also re-reviewed the MFD driver - and I'm glad
> I did!
>
> My Acked-by has been attached to the MFD portion since v5, which is
> why the code hasn't caught my eye before today. I reviewed the
> relocation of the *binding document* (serial => mfd with no changes)
> in v4 and nothing else. It appears as though you mistakenly added it
> to the *MFD driver* instead. This explains my confusion in v10 when I
> told you I'd already reviewed the binding document.
>
> As I said, I have re-reviewed the MFD driver and I'm afraid to say
> that I do not like what I see. Besides the missing header file and
> the whitespace tabbing errors, I do not agree with the implementation.
> Using MFD as a shim to hack around driver selection is not a valid
> use-case.
>
> What's stopping you from just using the compatible string directly to
> select which driver you need to probe?
>

Then you'd have multiple compatible strings for the same IP which is a
big no-no.


--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-11 11:40    [W:0.132 / U:7.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site