Message ID | 20221117050126.2966714-1-kumaravel.thiagarajan@microchip.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add driver for the pci1xxxx's quad-uart function | expand |
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 4:14 PM > To: Tharunkumar Pasumarthi - I67821 > <Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@microchip.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tty-next 2/4] 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add > serial8250_pci_setup_port definition in 8250_pcilib.c > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the > content is safe > > > Don't you have a dependency issue here? > > > > Okay, I will explain the need for the changes done in commit description. > > What I meant is that the 8250_pci patch should be _prerequisite_ to your > stuff and not otherwise. Hi Andy, So, do you suggest having these changes done as first patch of the patchset prior to patches specific for our driver? Thanks, Tharun Kumar P
On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 03:50:02AM +0000, Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@microchip.com wrote: > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 4:14 PM > > To: Tharunkumar Pasumarthi - I67821 <Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@microchip.com> ... > > > > Don't you have a dependency issue here? > > > > > > Okay, I will explain the need for the changes done in commit description. > > > > What I meant is that the 8250_pci patch should be _prerequisite_ to your > > stuff and not otherwise. > > Hi Andy, > So, do you suggest having these changes done as first patch of the patchset prior to patches > specific for our driver? Yes.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 03:45:01PM +0000, Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@microchip.com wrote: > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 1:55 PM ... > > > + case PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_EFAR_PCI11414: > > > + irq_idx = idx; > > > + break; > > > > Try to make this entire switch-case more compact. It's possible. > > I am planning to use look-up table for this in-order to avoid computation > within switch case. Does this approach sound good? Maybe, it's you who decides, just show us the result and we will see.