[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EC0CFBA.3090202@evidence.eu.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:22:18 +0100
From: Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
CC: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>, alan@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Jesper Nilsson <Jesper.Nilsson@...s.com>,
Mikael Starvik <mikael.starvik@...s.com>,
Darron Black <darron@...ffin.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RS485: fix inconsistencies in the meaning of some variables
Il 13/11/2011 22:53, Wolfram Sang ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on a patch series which adds hardware RS485 to the 8250
> according to the latest developments. The series will be posted tomorrow after
> some more tests. However, there is one thing I wondered about:
>
>> From now on, SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND and SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND will be used to
>> set the voltage of the RTS pin (as in the crisv10.c driver); the delay will be
>> understood by looking only at the value of delay_rts_before_send and
>> delay_rts_after_send.
>
> Do I overlook something or is SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND always the inverted
> signal of SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND. So why do we need both? (BTW
> SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND is a non-obvious name, I think. But changing it will
> probably break even more users?)
I think so, but I'm not sure since the original version of the Cris driver (prior than the
RS485 data structure) contained both values: a value for RTS during send and a value
for RTS after sent. That's why both vales have been reported inside the RS485 data structure...
Best regards,
Claudio
--
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