Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core

From: [email-masked] (Sergei Ianovich)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:46:32 +0300

On Sat, 2015-12-19 at 14:26 +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Robert Jarzmik <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > Sergei Ianovich <[email-masked]> writes:
> > 
> > > pxa2xx-uart was a separate uart platform driver. It was declaring
> > > the same device names and numbers as 8250 driver. As a result,
> > > it was impossible to use 8250 driver on PXA SoCs.
> > > 
> > > Upon closer examination pxa2xx-uart turned out to be a clone of
> > > 8250_core driver.
> > > 
> > > Workaround for Erratum #19 according to Marvel(R) PXA270M
> > > Processor
> > > Specification Update (April 19, 2010) is dropped. 8250_core reads
> > > from FIFO immediately after checking DR bit in LSR.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sergei Ianovich <[email-masked]>
> > > Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus <[email-masked]>
> > > Reviewed-by: James Cameron <[email-masked]>
> > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email-masked]>
> > Tested-by: Robert Jarzmik <[email-masked]>
> 
> Shrunk the list, the following is rather mach-pxa specific.
> 
> Actually there is a small glitch ...
> Have a look at arch/arm/mach-pxa/viper.c, line 490:
> 	#ifndef CONFIG_SERIAL_PXA
> 	...

Thanks for spotting this. This is caused by a change in the latest
version of the patch (SERIAL_8250_PXA instead of SERIAL_PXA). This
change could be reverted.

> But that can be handled in an subsequent patch to keep your acks and
> reviews.
> 

I will respin the patch. Please comment on the acks and reviews. They
were made at an earlier version of the patch. That version no longer
applies. Can the updated version carry on the flags?