linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serial driver PMC MSP71xx, kernel linux-mips.git mast er

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45B7C3CE.2050301@ru.mvista.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:38:38 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To:	Marc St-Jean <Marc_St-Jean@...-sierra.com>
Cc:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial driver PMC MSP71xx, kernel linux-mips.git mast
  er

Hello.

Marc St-Jean wrote:

>> >>This I would hope you can hide in the platform specific
>> >>serial_in/serial_out functions. If you write the UART_LCR save it in
>> >>serial_out(), if you read IER etc.

>> > I couldn't find hooks for platform specific serial_in/out functions.

>>    It's because there are none. :-)

>> > Do you mean using the up->port.iotype's in serial_in/out from 8250.c?

>>    Not sure what Alan meant, but this seems the only option for now.

> That's the conclusion I came to. I've rewritten the patch to use port.type
> instead of iotype since one of the fix is SoC and not UART specific. I guess

    I failed to folkow your logic. :-)

> I could use both iotype and type with a test on each for the appropriate
> bug, what do you recommend?

    I think iotype would be enough. You can't pass type for platform devices 
anyway, IIRC (the thing I don't quite like).

>>  >>And we might want to add a void * for board specific insanity to the 8250
>> >>structures if we really have to so you can hang your brain damage
>> >>privately off that ?

>> > Sounds good to me, it would give us a location to store the address of the
>> > UART_STATUS_REG required by this UART variant.

>>    I doubt we really need to *store* it somewhere. Isn't it an fixed offset
>>from UART's base (I haven't seen the header)?

> Unfortunately it's not a constant offset from the UART in the SoC register

    Hm...

> space. I've used Alan suggestion and added a classic, on some other OSes %-|,
> void "user" pointer.

    Only do not do it under #ifdef.

> Marc

WBR, Sergei
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/