Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 4/6] xen/arm: Add the new OMAP UART driver.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 14:21 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 08/22/2013 11:20 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 19:14 +0800, Chen Baozi wrote:
> >> TI OMAP UART introduces some features such as register access modes, which
> >> makes its configuration and interrupt handling differs from 8250 compatible
> >> UART. Thus, we seperate this driver from ns16550's implementation.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Baozi <baozich@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> >> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ CFLAGS += -marm
> >>  
> >>  HAS_PL011 := y
> >>  HAS_EXYNOS4210 := y
> >> +HAS_OMAP := y
> > 
> > All three of these would be better with a _UART suffix IMHO, the
> > HAS_OMAP makes it particularly obvious...
> > 
> > Would you mind making this change (in a follow up patch)?
> > 
> > [...]
> >> +static int __init omap_uart_irq(struct serial_port *port)
> >> +{
> >> +    struct omap_uart *uart = port->uart;
> >> +
> >> +    return ((uart->irq.irq > 0) ? uart->irq.irq : -1);
> >> +}
> >> +[..]
> >> +static struct uart_driver __read_mostly omap_uart_driver = {
> > [...]
> >> +    .irq = omap_uart_irq,
> >> +    .dt_irq_get = omap_uart_dt_irq,
> > [...]
> > 
> > This is really a question for Julien: Does a driver which is DT only
> > need to provide the irq hook or is dt_irq sufficient?
> 
> dt_irq callback is enough. Other other DT drivers implement the irq
> callback, which is not used by Xen on ARM.

I suppose it can be dropped from those drivers which aren't also non-DT
(e.g. ns16550 which is on x86 too) then?

> I'm wondering if we can ifdef the irq callback (and so serial_irq) in
> this case for ARM?

Could do.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel