[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1456852472.23036.124.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 20:14:32 +0300
From: Sergei Ianovich <ynvich@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...tec.com>,
Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>,
Joachim Eastwood <manabian@...il.com>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] serial: support for 16550A serial ports on LP-8x4x
On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 18:46 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 19:25 +0300, Sergei Ianovich wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 13:06 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 00:26 +0300, Sergei Ianovich wrote:
>
> > > > + len &= 3;
>
> Mask as well to be defined.
Sure.
> So, but if you support only fixed rates, why do you care about BOTHER
> at all?
If BOTHER is defined, tty_termios_baud_rate()
and tty_termios_encode_baud_rate() allow non-standard baud rates. I
should clear it from c_cflag to indicate I don't support it.
> > > >
> > > I think you can call this unconditionally together with case >
> > > 115200.
> >
> > The calls are orthogonal. This one deals with the case when BOTHER
> > is
> > defined and set, and we have non-zero rate with BOTHER, but we have
> > zero rate after BOTHER is cleared. So we set 9600 as a sane default
> > speed.
> >
> > This one deals with the case when the rate is over 115200. If the
> > previous case has been triggered, this one won't be.
>
> Yeah, but I meant to unconditionally call it just once here every
> time.
I see. It saves a few lines.
> > ---
> > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_lp8841.c: In function
> > 'lp8841_serial_probe':
> > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_lp8841.c:124:32: warning: excess
> > elements in struct initializer
> > struct uart_8250_port uart = {0};
> > ^
> > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_lp8841.c:124:32: note: (near
> > initialization for 'uart.port.lock.<anonymous>.rlock.raw_lock')
>
> Do you have any warning verbosity enabled? I see a lot of stuff like
> this in the code
Plain `make`.
The warning seems to be the result of initializing a spinlock with
zero. Spinlocks are intentionally obfuscated, but I didn't investigate
further.
> $ git grep -n 'struct .* = {0};' | wc -l
> 338
>
> $ git grep -n 'struct .* = { \?0 \?};' | wc -l
> 550
>
> ( '… = { 0 };' included)
The first structure member is most likely not a spinlock in those
cases.
> > ---
> >
> > Zero triggers a warning. I'll use memset().
>
> Either will work.
OK
The only remaining open point is BOTHER handling.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists