Re: [PATCH 2/8] pch_uart: Add uart_clk selection for the MinnowBoard

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 08:16:18PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 19:31 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 06:53:22PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> >   
> > >  struct pch_uart_buffer {
> > >  	unsigned char *buf;
> > > @@ -398,6 +399,10 @@ static int pch_uart_get_uartclk(void)
> > >  		    strstr(cmp, "nanoETXexpress-TT")))
> > >  		return NTC1_UARTCLK;
> > >  
> > > +	cmp = dmi_get_system_info(DMI_BOARD_NAME);
> > > +	if (cmp && strstr(cmp, "MinnowBoard"))
> > > +		return MINNOW_UARTCLK;
> > > +
> > 
> > You know, we do have the DMI interface to handle this in a much nicer
> > way instead of just randomly trying different strings over and over
> > until we find one that matches...
> 
> I was aiming for minimal change. Partly because I'm lazy. Partly
> because I don't have all of the impacted hardware to test. Partly
> because I wanted to keep it simple so I could push this to 3.8 stable.

Then you should have marked it for the stable tree by putting the proper
Cc: in the body of the patch...

> I can rewrite this detection to use the DMI interface. Would you allow
> it as a follow-on, to keep the changes to stable minimal?
> 
> Also, I do have a PCI subsystem ID for this particular board which I
> could trigger on, but since that mechanism didn't exist in the driver
> already and the other boards don't do it, I just followed what was
> already there (yeah, so I wrote most of what was already there...
> but.... anyway) :-)
> 
> What do you prefer? Rewrite, then add Minnow, or use this, then
> rewrite?

How about this, which makes it easy to backport, then you fix it up
properly for 3.12?  This comes after my tree is pretty much closed for
3.11, but a simple device id addition like this is acceptable, but I'll
not get to it until after 3.11-rc1 is out...

thanks,

greg k-h