Return-Path: Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:02:54 +0100 From: One Thousand Gnomes To: Rob Herring Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Marcel Holtmann , Jiri Slaby , Sebastian Reichel , Pavel Machek , Peter Hurley , NeilBrown , "Dr . H . Nikolaus Schaller" , Linus Walleij , "open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] UART slave device bus Message-ID: <20160822180254.5c95af7c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <20160818011445.22726-1-robh@kernel.org> <12886761.WF058qtZp8@wuerfel> <2775954.hrE2UdODgU@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII List-ID: > > I think there are two other valuable features provided by serio: > > > > - an existing set of drivers written to the API > > - the implementation of the tty_ldisc > > True, though I'd expect little of the data flow part of it to be reused. Then your design is broken. > - a child of the uart node > - a reg property containing the line number if the parent has multiple > uarts (I'd expect this to rarely be used). That surprises me as for current x86 platforms it would be the norm, except that we use ACPI. > - baudrate and other line configuration (though I would expect the > slave driver to know all this and set it w/o DT. Also, we already have > a way to set baudrate in the parent node at least.) > - other standard device properties for interrupt, gpios, regulators. > > Also to consider is whether muxing of multiple slaves is needed. It's > not anything I've seen come up, but it's not hard to imagine. I think > that can be considered later and shouldn't impact the initial binding > or infrastructure. You can describe the child of the serial device as a mux and the children of the mux as whatever so it comes out fine when you get to that point. Alan