Re: [PATCHv2 4/4] Bluetooth: btwilink: drop superseded driver

[Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2139 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
> 
> >>> All users of this driver have been converted to the serdev based
> >>> hci_ll driver. The unused driver can be safely dropped now.
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/bluetooth/Kconfig    |  11 --
> >>> drivers/bluetooth/Makefile   |   1 -
> >>> drivers/bluetooth/btwilink.c | 337 -----------------------------------
> >>> 3 files changed, 349 deletions(-)
> >>> delete mode 100644 drivers/bluetooth/btwilink.c
> >> 
> >> patch has been applied to bluetooth-next tree.
> >> 
> >> However what I really like to see is that you re-introduce a
> >> btwilink driver that is purely serdev based and doesn’t rely on
> >> any hci_uart/hci_ldisc code. A clean serdev only driver is that
> >> best and easier to maintain long term.
> > 
> > So basically move the serdev implementation from hci_ll.c into its
> > own driver and make hci_ll hci_uart based only? That effectively
> > means, that we have two implementations of the protocol. I don't
> > think this will improve maintainability, since then bugs needs to
> > be fixed in two places? Note, that we have a couple of drivers
> > with serdev+hci_uart by now:
> > 
> > for file in $(grep -l serdev drivers/bluetooth/hci_*c) ; grep -l hci_uart_register_proto "${file}"
> > hci_bcm.c
> > hci_h5.c
> > hci_ldisc.c
> > hci_ll.c
> > hci_mrvl.c
> > hci_qca.c
> 
> I would like to have something similar to btmtkuart.c which is a
> pure serdev driver that doesn’t depend on any hci_ldisc.c
> framework. If we have this, then we would just drop hci_ll.c from
> the kernel and focus on the serdev only version. As noted, there
> is no need for any other driver at that point since everything is
> probed anyway. Users will not even notice the difference.

This can be achieved by just removing the hci_uart part from
hci_ll. But AFAIK there are some non-wilink based TI HCILL
devices, which do not require any extra platform data and might
still use the hci_uart part.

-- Sebastian

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]