On 17.01.18 23:11, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 17 January 2018 at 15:03, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >> On 17.01.18 20:39, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> On 17 January 2018 at 00:54, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> On some boards, serial devices may or may not be muxed properly to actual >>>> pins, depending on firmware configuration. To determine whether we should >>>> use a serial device for U-Boot in-/output, we need to check whether it >>>> is muxed properly. >>>> >>>> This is something only the board file can do, so let's expose a weak >>>> function that a board can override to explicitly allow or disallow >>>> usage of certain serial devices. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/serial/serial-uclass.c | 11 +++++++++++ >>>> include/serial.h | 11 +++++++++++ >>>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+) >>>> >>> >>> Can we please figure out how handle this in the serial driver / driver >>> model itself? I want to avoid weak functions with driver model. >> >> I'm very happy to see suggestions :). The reason I went with the weak >> function is really because I couldn't think of anything better. > > The serial driver is proprietary so you should be able to put a call > into the pinctrl driver from that. The pinctrl driver can return the > state of a pin - maybe get_gpio_mux() or a new pinmux_get()?
The SoC has 2 serial drivers: a proprietary one and a pl011. Would you think it's ok to put an architecture specific hack into the generic pl011 code with an #ifdef? Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot