[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DU2PR04MB8600144320EEBF932E93D647E7629@DU2PR04MB8600.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:27:12 +0000
From: Neeraj sanjay kale <neeraj.sanjaykale@....com>
To: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
CC: "marcel@...tmann.org" <marcel@...tmann.org>,
"johan.hedberg@...il.com" <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
"luiz.dentz@...il.com" <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
Amitkumar Karwar <amitkumar.karwar@....com>,
Rohit Fule <rohit.fule@....com>,
Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Bluetooth: btnxpuart: Enable flow control before
checking boot signature
Hi Paul,
Thank you for reviewing this patch.
> > static int nxp_check_boot_sign(struct btnxpuart_dev *nxpdev)
> > {
> > serdev_device_set_baudrate(nxpdev->serdev,
> HCI_NXP_PRI_BAUDRATE);
> > - serdev_device_set_flow_control(nxpdev->serdev, 0);
> > + serdev_device_set_flow_control(nxpdev->serdev, 1);
>
> It was explicitly disabled before. Is it on by default?
Flow control is disabled by default, and this is the first instance here, where it is enabled.
>
> Also, is there now a redundant line later in the flow enabling flow control, or
> was it never enabled?
Yes. Removed the redundant line as we are now enabling flow control in nxp_check_boot_sign().
>
> Other place in the source code seem to use `true` or `false` instead of 1/0.
Changed all instances of 0/1 to false/true in v2 patch.
Thanks,
Neeraj
Powered by blists - more mailing lists