[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29b084c-183b-4a84-2376-2c88eff7d5a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:47:36 +0300 (EEST)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
cc: "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] serial: 8250_dw: Rework ->serial_out() LCR write
retry logic
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 3:43 PM Ilpo Järvinen
> <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Currently dw8250_verify_write() (was dw8250_check_lcr()) nullifies the
> > benefit from differentiated ->serial_out() by having big if tree to
> > select correct write type.
> >
> > Rework the logic such that the LCR write can be retried within the
> > relevant ->serial_out() handler:
> > 1. Move retries counter on the caller level and pass as pointer to
> > dw8250_verify_write()
> > 2. Make dw8250_verify_write() return bool
> > 3. Retry the write on caller level (if needed)
>
> I'm wondering if it's possible to utilize one of iopoll.h macro here
> instead of copying retries and that not-so-obvious IO poll write.
Eh, are you suggesting I should do write as a side-effect inside one of
the iopoll.h macros? Because those available seem to only read?
Or should I create another macro there which writes too?
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists