Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] UART slave device bus

["H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>]

Hi Greg,

> Am 18.08.2016 um 12:57 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:54:15PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>> 
>>> Am 18.08.2016 um 12:47 schrieb Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thereof 4 files, ~260 changes w/o gps demo and documentation/bindings.
>>> 
>>> So what do you use for the serial devices? platform_device was vetoed
>>> for that purpose by Greg.
>> 
>> device tree?
> 
> No.

? Sorry, but each time Pavel jumps in, he just copies half of a statement and
any reply gets misunderstood.

I did not even mention platform_device, still you disagree to device tree for the
*slave driver*?

> 
> This patchset from Rob is the way I have been saying it should be done
> for years now.  Yes, a "bus" takes up more boilerplate code (blame me
> for that), but overall, it makes the drivers simpler,

Sorry, but I don't see how Rob's approach makes it simpler to write a device driver
than our original proposal, which btw is also sort of a bus and I see only some implementation
differences.

Except that IMHO Rob's approach lacks functions we need (which maybe can added).

> and fits into the
> rest of the kernel driver/device model much better.

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus