linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 tty-next 1/3] 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add driver for quad-uart support.

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]

Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:37:20 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@...rochip.com
Cc:     Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@...rochip.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jirislaby@...nel.org, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
        u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, johan@...nel.org,
        wander@...hat.com, etremblay@...tech-controls.com,
        macro@...am.me.uk, geert+renesas@...der.be, jk@...abs.org,
        phil.edworthy@...esas.com, lukas@...ner.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 tty-next 1/3] 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add driver for
 quad-uart support.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:24 AM <Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@...rochip.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> > Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 2:53 PM

...

> > > +       [PORT_MCHP16550A] = {
> > > +               .name           = "MCHP16550A",
> > > +               .fifo_size      = 256,
> > > +               .tx_loadsz      = 256,
> > > +               .fcr            = UART_FCR_ENABLE_FIFO | UART_FCR_R_TRIG_01,
> > > +               .rxtrig_bytes   = {2, 66, 130, 194},
> > > +               .flags          = UART_CAP_FIFO,
> > > +       },
> >
> > Can you assign this in ->setup() or so instead of adding a new port type?
>
> If I understand correctly, you suggest doing something like this inside pci1xxxx_setup() API:
>
> pci1xxxx_setup(.., uart_8250_port *port, ..) {
> ..
> port->port.fifosize = 256;
> port->tx_loadsz = 256;
> port->capabilities = UART_FCR_ENABLE_FIFO | UART_FCR_R_TRIG_01;
> ..
> }
>
> instead of adding new port type PORT_MCHP16550A.

Yes, something like this.

> But, if I do this, I cannot use sysfs interface for updating rx_trig_bytes right?

Maybe, I don't remember by heart that part of the code. But why do you
need that ABI in the first place?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko