Re: [PATCH] serial: sh-sci: Support custom speed setting

[Eugeniu Rosca]

Dear Geert and Greg,

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:57:35PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 01:32:50PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Eugeniu,
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:20 PM Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Torii Kenichi <torii.ken1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch is necessary to use BT module and XM module with DENSO TEN
> > > development board.
> > >
> > > This patch supports ASYNC_SPD_CUST flag by ioctl(TIOCSSERIAL), enables
> > > custom speed setting with setserial(1).
> > >
> > > The custom speed is calculated from uartclk and custom_divisor.
> > > If custom_divisor is zero, custom speed setting is invalid.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Torii Kenichi <torii.ken1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > [erosca: rebase against v5.5]
> > > Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Thanks for your patch!
> > 
> > While this seems to work fine[*], I have a few comments/questions:
> >   1. This feature seems to be deprecated:
> > 
> >          sh-sci e6e68000.serial: setserial sets custom speed on
> > ttySC1. This is deprecated.
> > 
> >   2. As the wanted speed is specified as a divider, the resulting speed
> >      may be off, cfr. the example for 57600 below.
> >      Note that the SCIF device has multiple clock inputs, and can do
> >      57600 perfectly if the right crystal has been fitted.
> > 
> >  3. What to do with "[PATCH/RFC] serial: sh-sci: Update uartclk based
> >      on selected clock" (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11103703/)?
> >      Combined with this, things become pretty complicated and
> >      unpredictable, as uartclk now always reflect the frequency of the
> >      last used base clock, which was the optimal one for the previously
> >      used speed....
> > 
> > I think it would be easier if we just had an API to specify a raw speed.
> > Perhaps that already exists?
> 
> Yes, see:
> 	http://www.panix.com/~grante/arbitrary-baud.c

This looks like a compelling piece of evidence users should stay away
from implementing and using the kludge (38400 baud) mechanism?

Unless the author and the users of this patch (CC-ed in this thread)
have a different opinion, I consider this topic closed. Thanks!

-- 
Best Regards
Eugeniu Rosca