Re: [PATCH v7] serial: support for 16550A serial ports on LP-8x4x

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 20:14 +0300, Sergei Ianovich wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 18:46 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 19:25 +0300, Sergei Ianovich wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 13:06 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 00:26 +0300, Sergei Ianovich wrote:

> > So, but if you support only fixed rates, why do you care about
> > BOTHER
> > at all?
> 
> If BOTHER is defined,Âtty_termios_baud_rate()
> andÂtty_termios_encode_baud_rate() allow non-standard baud rates. I
> should clear it fromÂc_cflag to indicate I don't support it.
> 
> > > > > Â
> > > > I think you can call this unconditionally together with case >
> > > > 115200.
> > > 
> > > The calls are orthogonal. This one deals with the case when
> > > BOTHER
> > > is
> > > defined and set, and we have non-zero rate with BOTHER, but we
> > > have
> > > zero rate after BOTHER is cleared. So we set 9600 as a sane
> > > default
> > > speed.

Maybe you just set a baud rate nearest to the one from the table in
case of BOTHER?

In that case perhaps you have to supply +-1 to the range. That's why I
asked aboutÂuart_get_baud_rate().Â

Maybe this flow will work for you

if (BOTHER)
Âclear BOTHER
ÂcallÂuart_get_baud_rate()

?

> The warning seems to be the result of initializing a spinlock with
> zero. Spinlocks are intentionally obfuscated, but I didn't
> investigate
> further.
> 
> > $ git grep -n 'struct .* = {0};' | wc -l
> > 338
> > 
> > $ git grep -n 'struct .* = { \?0 \?};' | wc -l
> > 550
> > 
> > ( 'â = { 0 };' included)
> 
> The first structure member is most likely not a spinlock in those
> cases.

Hmm... Interesting. On one hand the poison is reasonable, on the other
we often do a memset() or {0} on structures, i.o.w. assign 0 as initial
value until spinlock_init().

Arnd, what do you think about this (and similar) case(s)?

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy