[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160429004427.GC31752@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:44:27 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
guohanjun@...wei.com, xuwei5@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] serial: 8250_dw: fix wrong logic in dw8250_check_lcr()
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:33:34PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2016/4/5 18:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 13:53 +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> >> Commit cdcea058e510 ("serial: 8250_dw: Avoid serial_outx code
> >> duplicate
> >> with new dw8250_check_lcr()") introduce a wrong logic when write val
> >> to
> >> LCR reg. When CONFIG_64BIT enabled, __raw_writeq is used
> >> unconditionally.
> >>
> >> The __raw_readq/__raw_writeq is introduced by commit bca2092d7897
> >> ("serial:
> >> 8250_dw: Use 64-bit access for OCTEON.") for OCTEON, so for
> >> !PORT_OCTEON,
> >> we better to use coincident write func.
> >>
> >> Fixes: cdcea058e510("serial: 8250_dw: Avoid serial_outx code
> >> duplicate with new dw8250_check_lcr()")
> >> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Changes since v3:
> >> - Add patch change log, suggested by Greg Kroah-Hartman.
> >> Changes since v2:
> >> - Add #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT back, ensure it can be built under
> >
> > Oh, true. Since it's a native IO we can't use writeq() helper from io-
> > 64-nonatomic-*.
> >
> >> configuration lacking readq/writeq.
> >> Changes since v1:
> >> - Repace '#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT' with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT).
> >> - Enrich patch log, and add Fixes tag.
> [...]
> >
> > So, this changes logic to write the value on any 64 platform, using
> > different (non-64-bit) accessors, so, the case to fix is
> > actually "64BIT && !PORT_OCTEON". Perhaps commit message should be
> > amended to point that clearly.
>
> Yes, it's more clear. thanks for review and point it out.
>
> To Greg, should I resend it or can you help me to change the patch log when you merge it. Thanks.
Please resend it in the form you want it to be.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists