Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] ACPI: parse SPCR and enable matching console

[Aleksey Makarov]

Hi Andy, 

Thank you for review.

On 02/29/2016 04:29 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Aleksey Makarov
> <aleksey.makarov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 'ARM Server Base Boot Requiremets' [1] mentions SPCR (Serial Port
>> Console Redirection Table) [2] as a mandatory ACPI table that
>> specifies the configuration of serial console.
>>
>> Parse this table and check if any registered console match the
>> description.  If it does, enable that console.
>>
>> Introduce a new function acpi_console_check().  At the uart port
>> registration, this function checks if the ACPI SPCR table specifies
>> its argument of type struct uart_port to be a console
>> and if so calls add_preferred_console().
> 
>> +       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>> +               pr_err("could not get the table\n");
> 
> Is it worse to have on error level? Is it possible to have firmware
> without this table? I think it would be a normal case for non-arm
> world.
> I'm also not sure if this message useful even on warn level.

I will delete the message in the next version, thank you.

>> +               return -ENOENT;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       if (table->header.revision < 2) {
>> +               err = -EINVAL;
>> +               pr_err("wrong table version\n");
> 
> And this one quite good to have, indeed.
> 
>> + * acpi_console_check - Check if uart matches the console specified by SPCR.
>> + *
>> + * @uport:     uart port to check
>> + *
> 
> Since you use sections, you may add:
> + * Description:

According to kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt "Description: " is optional.

>> + * This function checks if the ACPI SPCR table specifies @uport to be a console
>> + * and if so calls add_preferred_console()
>> + *
>> + * Return: a non-error value if the console matches.
> 
>> @@ -2654,8 +2655,17 @@ int uart_add_one_port(struct uart_driver *drv, struct uart_port *uport)
>>                 spin_lock_init(&uport->lock);
>>                 lockdep_set_class(&uport->lock, &port_lock_key);
>>         }
>> -       if (uport->cons && uport->dev)
>> -               of_console_check(uport->dev->of_node, uport->cons->name, uport->line);
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * Support both open FW and ACPI access to console definitions.
>> +        * Both of_console_check() and acpi_console_check() will call
>> +        * add_preferred_console() if a console definition is found.
>> +        */
>> +       if (uport->cons && uport->dev) {
>> +               if (!acpi_console_check(uport))
> 
> if (cond1) {
>  if (cond2) {
> ...
>  }
> }
> 
> is equivalent to
> if (cond1 && cond2) {
> ...
> }

It is, but it's a style decision.  I would prefer to leave it as is because it emphasizes that
after meeting some condition we first call acpi_console_check() and then of_console_check().

Thank you
Aleksey Makarov

> 
>> +                       of_console_check(uport->dev->of_node, uport->cons->name,
>> +                                        uport->line);
>> +       }
> 
> 
>