linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 00/18] 8250-core based serial driver for OMAP + DMA

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

Message-ID: <20140908144616.GA22315@ci00147.xsens-tech.local>
Date:	Mon, 8 Sep 2014 16:46:18 +0200
From:	Frans Klaver <frans.klaver@...ns.com>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
CC:	<linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, <tony@...mide.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <balbi@...com>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/18] 8250-core based serial driver for OMAP + DMA

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:02:35PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This is my complete queue fo the omap serial driver based on the 8250 core
> code. I played with it on beagle bone, am335x-evm and dra7xx including DMA.
> The runtime-pm pieces look now bug-compatible with the omap-serial driver.
> Besides the runtime-om improvement I also fixed a few corner cases for the
> TX-DMA problem. The DMA fixes (in edma and omap-dma) were dropped and the
> problem has been in 8250-dma via patch #13.

Thanks for the respin. I've just tested the series a bit. Here's some
things I ran into.

- Basic console use is better than the previous series. It behaves
  pretty much like the omap-serial implementation.

- ncurses based applications (vi, less) don't play nice for me on the
  console with this series. less doesn't show me anything. vi doesn't
  return to console properly.

- I seem seem to get stuck in a "serial8250: too much work for irq%d"
  loop somewhat reliably. We have a rather demanding application with
  typically somewhere between 600 and 1000 byte packets being sent at
  240Hz (roughly somewhere between 1.5 and 2 Mb/s). We run at baudrate
  3500k. I get into this "too much work" thing already when running at
  300 bytes per packet.

I hope this is of some use to you. I'll do more testing later.

Thanks,
Frans
--
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/