[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201102221734.15582.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:34:15 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Subhasish Ghosh" <subhasish@...tralsolutions.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, sachi@...tralsolutions.com,
davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>, nsekhar@...com,
"open list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, m-watkins@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] tty: pruss SUART driver
On Tuesday 22 February 2011, Subhasish Ghosh wrote:
> @@ -122,13 +122,10 @@ static void omapl_pru_tx_chars(struct omapl_pru_suart
> *soft_uart, u32 uart_no)
> if (!(suart_get_duplex(soft_uart, uart_no) & ePRU_SUART_HALF_TX))
> return;
>
> - if (down_trylock(&soft_uart->port_sem[uart_no]))
> - return;
> -
> if (uart_circ_empty(xmit) ||
> uart_tx_stopped(&soft_uart->port[uart_no])) {
> pruss_suart_stop_tx(&soft_uart->port[uart_no]);
> - up(&soft_uart->port_sem[uart_no]);
> + soft_uart->tx_empty[uart_no] = true;
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -259,7 +256,6 @@ static irqreturn_t pruss_suart_interrupt(s32 irq, void
> *dev_id)
> pru_intr_clr_isrstatus(dev, uart_num, PRU_TX_INTR);
> pru_softuart_clr_tx_status(dev, &soft_uart->suart_hdl
> [port->line]);
> - up(&soft_uart->port_sem[port->line]);
> omapl_pru_tx_chars(soft_uart, port->line);
> }
> } while (txrx_flag & (PRU_RX_INTR | PRU_TX_INTR));
> @@ -294,7 +290,10 @@ static void pruss_suart_start_tx(struct uart_port
> *port)
>
> suart_intr_setmask(dev, soft_uart->suart_hdl[port->line].uart_num,
> PRU_TX_INTR, CHN_TXRX_IE_MASK_CMPLT);
> - omapl_pru_tx_chars(soft_uart, port->line);
> + if (soft_uart->tx_empty[port->line] == true) {
> + soft_uart->tx_empty[port->line] = false;
> + omapl_pru_tx_chars(soft_uart, port->line);
> + }
> }
This looks racy, and I think you at least need to take the spinlock in
pruss_suart_start_tx(), but I don't fully understand the intention of the
code.
I guess you could also use a bitmask for tx_empty and use test_and_clear_bit()
on that to guarantee atomicity.
Arnd
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists