[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28a1d4ae-493d-8bbc-46f7-ad41ca04d782@denx.de>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 23:01:18 +0100
From: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To: Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>
Cc: "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Burton <pburton@...ecomp.com>,
Daniel Jedrychowski <avistel@...il.com>,
"linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "serial: 8250: Fix clearing FIFOs in RS485 mode
again"
On 12/16/2018 10:39 PM, Paul Burton wrote:
> Hi Marek,
Hi,
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 10:08:48PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> I did suggest an alternative approach which would rename
>>> serial8250_clear_fifos() and split it into 2 variants - one that
>>> disables FIFOs & one that does not, then use the latter in
>>> __do_stop_tx_rs485():
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181213014805.77u5dzydo23cm6fq@pburton-laptop/
>>>
>>> However I have no access to the OMAP3 hardware that Marek's patch was
>>> attempting to fix & have heard nothing back with regards to him testing
>>> that approach, so here's a simple revert that fixes the Ingenic JZ4780.
>>>
>>> I've marked for stable back to v4.10 presuming that this is how far the
>>> broken patch may be backported, given that this is where commit
>>> 2bed8a8e7072 ("Clearing FIFOs in RS485 emulation mode causes subsequent
>>> transmits to break") that it tried to fix was introduced.
>>
>> OK, I tested this on AM335x / OMAP3 and the system is again broken, so
>> that's a NAK.
>
> To be clear - what did you test? This revert or the patch linked to
> above?
>
> This revert would of course reintroduce your RS485 issue because it just
> undoes your change.
The revert. Which of the two patches do you need me to test.
> Either way, commit f6aa5beb45be ("serial: 8250: Fix clearing FIFOs in
> RS485 mode again") breaks systems that worked before it so at this late
> stage in the 4.20 cycle a revert would make sense to me. If that breaks
> RS85 on OMAP3 then my question would be how much can anyone really care
> if nobody noticed since v4.10? And why should that lead to you breaking
> the JZ4780 which has been discovered before a stable kernel release
> includes the breakage?
There's always a .y release where this can be properly investigated and
solved, instead of breaking one platform or the other.
Then again, see the patch from Ezequiel that was just posted, I think it
might be a far better solution.
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
Powered by blists - more mailing lists