Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] UART slave device bus

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi Alan,

> Am 18.08.2016 um 16:25 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:14:42 -0500
> Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> This was proposed ages ago and the point clearly made that
> 
> a) the idea doesn't work because uarts are not required to use the uart
> layer and even those that do sometimes only use half of it
> 
> b) that you should use the tty_port abstraction
> 
> So instead of just waiting some months and recycling the proposals it's
> unfortunate that no listening and reworking was done.
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/18/177
> 
> So I'm giving this a large neon flashing NAK, because none of the
> problems have been addressed.
> 
>> Currently, devices attached via a UART are not well supported in the
>> kernel. The problem is the device support is done in tty line disciplines,
>> various platform drivers to handle some sideband, and in userspace with
>> utilities such as hciattach.
> 
> For most platforms it works very nicely and out of the box. The only
> real issue I have actually seen is the bandwidth issue from early tty
> based 3G modems. That's not hard to fix with some tty buffer changes.
> Basically you need a tty port pointer that is atomic exchangable and
> points either to the usual tty queue logic or to a 'fastpath' handler
> which just gets thrown a block of bytes and told to use them or lose them
> - which is the interface the non n_tty ldiscs want anyway. That's exactly
> what you would need to fix to support in kernel stuff as well. The tty
> queue mechanism for devices that can receive in blocks just becomes a
> fastpath.
> 
> There are some disgusting Android turds floating around out of tree where
> people use things like userspace GPIO line control but you won't fix most
> of those anyway because they are generally being used for user
> space modules including dumb GPS where the US government rules won't allow
> them to be open sourced anyway.
> 
>> - Split out the controller for uart_ports into separate driver. Do we see
>>  a need for controller drivers that are not standard serial drivers?
> 
> As I told you over six months ago uart_port is not the correct
> abstraction. You need to be working at the tty_port layer. The original
> design of tty_port was indeed partly to push towards being able to have a
> serial interface that is in use but not open to user space. The rather
> nice rework that the maintainers have done to put the buffers in the
> tty_port takes it closer still.
> 
> Plenty of the classic serial port interfaces also don't use the UART
> layer including every USB device (which is most of them these days), SDIO
> and others. USB has to be covered for this to be sensible.

It looks as if you try to solve a different problem than some of us. Maybe this is
the reason why you get the impression that nobody is listening to your proposal
(but that seems to be common for this topic - I have the impression that
nobody is listening to my proposals... so don't mind).

I can only talk for my device where I just want to be able to write a driver that
gets access to a low level physical UART within a SoC (a little abstracted
by uart_port) to directly talk to a device connected to such an UART for reasons
I have explained plenty of times.

Other devices may have orthogonal needs (or suspected needs) and hence
a single solution may not fit everybody.
 
> 
> Your changes also don't work because serial uart drivers are not obliged
> to use any of the uart buffering helpers and particularly on the rx side
> many do not do so and the performance hit would be too high.

The SoC I have, is using it.

> 
> It's been explained how to make it work with tty_port, every tty is a
> dynamic file handle life time object bound to a tty_port. Every tty has a
> tty_port, every tty driver has a tty_port.

> 
> Alan

BR, Nikolaus