Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:23:55 +0100
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <enrico.weigelt@gr13.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Directly accessing serial ports from drivers w/o TTYs ?
Message-ID: <20170630182355.42c2e22b@alans-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <cf910296-8bd9-aca8-079b-149580f1ddd0@gr13.net>
References: <a159c02b-cec6-51a5-3bde-b0e8eab74055@gr13.net>
        <20170626155115.13617ed6@alans-desktop>
        <cf910296-8bd9-aca8-079b-149580f1ddd0@gr13.net>
Organization: Intel Corporation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 801
Lines: 21

> I was thinking about something that looks like serdev from consumer
> side, but instead directly works on struct uart_port, w/o actually
> allocating a tty (and also the funny things like signals, etc).

uart_port is only a subset of tty devices and also relies upon tty for
some of the locking and other behaviour.

> > Why do you need to do otherwise ?  
> 
> Maybe it could offer better performance ?

Unless you have very tight latency requirements I would be surprised if
you could do that much better even on a slow machine. If you don't need
tty semantics then you can probably beat it hands down by writing your
own custom driver for the hardware that doesn't pretend to be a tty in
the first place.

The cost in the tty stack is pretty much all the Unix tty API and POSIX
guarantees.

Alan