Messages in this thread | | | From | "Subhasish Ghosh" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] tty: pruss SUART driver | Date | Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:00:25 +0530 |
| |
I could not follow the recommendations clearly. This is just to clarify.
Currently, I have the following files for the suart implementation:
drivers/tty/serial/da8xx_pruss/pruss_suart_api.h drivers/tty/serial/da8xx_pruss/pruss_suart_err.h drivers/tty/serial/da8xx_pruss/pruss_suart_regs.h drivers/tty/serial/da8xx_pruss/pruss_suart_board.h drivers/tty/serial/da8xx_pruss/pruss_suart_mcasp.h drivers/tty/serial/da8xx_pruss/pruss_suart_utils.h
drivers/tty/serial/da8xx_pruss/pruss_suart_api.c drivers/tty/serial/da8xx_pruss/pruss_suart.c drivers/tty/serial/da8xx_pruss/pruss_suart_utils.c
Of these, I will be removing pruss_suart_err.h as part of the Linux error code cleanup. But, I need to keep at least pruss_suart_board.h as a separate file, as this defines configurations which will be often modified by users, I don't want to mix it with other files.
Should I combine rest of the headers into a single file ? and keep the other three .c files under "drivers/tty/serial/" and remove the da8xx_pruss directory altogether.
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg KH" <gregkh@suse.de> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:07 PM To: "Subhasish Ghosh" <subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> Cc: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>; <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>; "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>; "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>; <sachi@mistralsolutions.com>; <davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com>; <nsekhar@ti.com>; "open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; <m-watkins@ti.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] tty: pruss SUART driver
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:12:32PM +0530, Subhasish Ghosh wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I had kept separate files to affirm the modularity and ease of >> portability of the system. >> >> There are three different interfaces, >> 1. The Linux driver interface >> 2. The PRU control interface >> 3. The McASP serializer interface. >> >> To maintain modularity, I had classified the files respectively as : >> 1. pruss_suart.c >> 2. pruss_suart_api.c >> 3. pruss_suart_utils.c >> >> This is not a single device which can be expressed as a single file, >> but functionally different devices logically cascaded together to >> work in unison. >> >> We use the PRU for packet processing, but the actual data is >> transmitted/received through the >> McASP, which we use as a serializer. >> >> I feel to combine these disparate functionalities into a single file >> will not >> >> 1. Help better understanding the device. I mean, why should a TTY >> UART driver be aware of the McASP or the PRU. >> 2. In case of a bug in the API layer or McASP, the driver need not >> be touched, thus improve maintainability. >> 3. If we need to port it to another Linux version, just editing the >> driver file should suffice, this will reduce bugs while porting. > > If your code is in the kernel tree, you do not need to ever port it to a > new version, as it will happen automatically as new kernels are > released, so this really isn't anything to worry about. > >> To me, combining all of these into a single file only creates a >> mess. This is the reason I had separated them into different files!! >> I don't understand why should it be better to have all of these into >> a single file. > > As Alan stated, just use 3 files in the directory with the other > drivers, you don't need a subdir for something small like this. > > thanks, > > greg k-h
| |