> On 03/25/2010 12:24 AM, Tobias Klauser wrote:
>> On 2010-03-24 at 12:05:27 +0100, Andrew Morton<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:47:47 +0100 Tobias Klauser<tklauser@distanz.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-03-23 at 22:54:59 +0100, Andrew Morton<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:52:23 +0100
>>>>> Tobias Klauser<tklauser@distanz.ch> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> + sigs |= (altera_uart_getppdcd(port->line) ? TIOCM_CD : 0);
>>>>>> + sigs |= (altera_uart_getppdtr(port->line) ? TIOCM_DTR : 0);
>>>>>>
>>>>> We seem to be missing a few things here.
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c: In function 'altera_uart_get_mctrl':
>>>>> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c:100: error: implicit declaration of function 'altera_uart_getppdcd'
>>>>> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c:101: error: implicit declaration of function 'altera_uart_getppdtr'
>>>>> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c: In function 'altera_uart_set_mctrl':
>>>>> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c:114: error: implicit declaration of function 'altera_uart_setppdtr'
>>>>>
>>>> These should usually be declared in a board specific header. There were
>>>> compatibility macros in altera_uart.c which defined them to NOPs in case
>>>> the board header did not properly define them. But I remove them as per
>>>> request by Alan Cox (Message-ID:
20100301181920.3952c3e7@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk).
>>>>
>>>> Should we add them again (maybe to altera_uart.h)? Or would it be better
>>>> to define a config symbol which is set in the board specific Kconfig and
>>>> altera_uart depends on it?
>>>>
>>> I guess the latter.
>>>
>>> There should have been a real implementation of these in the patchset -
>>> otherwise the code can't be used or tested. Confused.
>>>
>> Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> The last patchset I submitted (with the functions removed from
>> altera_uart.c) was tested on a local branch, where I added the macros to
>> a global board specific header. I didn't include that one in the patch.
>>
>> After looking at the code and it's history a bit closer (and also on the
>> nios2 specific part) I realised that this macro was probably added
>> because the driver was originally based on drivers/serial/mcf.c (the
>> macros are present there too).
>>
>> Also there are currently no board configurations known to me that define
>> these macros. So I'd suggest to remove the usage of these macros
>> alltogether. We could still add them again (to the board specific part
>> and with the config option then) in case there will be a board
>> configuration implementing DTR/DCD lines on GPIOs.
>>
>> Could anyone on nios2-dev verify that there are currently no such board
>> configurations?
>>
>> I'd remove the usage of the macros then and post an updated patch.
>>
> Maybe we can add pointers to functions for the DCD/DTR in the struct
> altera_uart_platform_uart. Then board config file can define them if
> they implement these pins, NULL/0 otherwise.
