Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:33:10 +0200 | From | Nicolas Ferre <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] tty/serial: at91: add a fallback option to determine uart/usart property |
| |
On 17/10/2013 16:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman : > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:16:47AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> On 16/10/2013 22:14, Greg Kroah-Hartman : >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:19:18AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>>> On 14/10/2013 15:59, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD : >>>>> On 10:43 Thu 10 Oct , Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>>>>> On older SoC, the "name" field is not filled in the register map. >>>>>> Fix the way to figure out if the serial port is an uart or an usart for these >>>>>> older products (with corresponding properties). >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++- >>>>>> include/linux/atmel_serial.h | 1 + >>>>>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c >>>>>> index 6b0f75e..c7d99af 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c >>>>>> @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ static void atmel_stop_rx(struct uart_port *port); >>>>>> #define UART_PUT_RTOR(port,v) __raw_writel(v, (port)->membase + ATMEL_US_RTOR) >>>>>> #define UART_PUT_TTGR(port, v) __raw_writel(v, (port)->membase + ATMEL_US_TTGR) >>>>>> #define UART_GET_IP_NAME(port) __raw_readl((port)->membase + ATMEL_US_NAME) >>>>>> +#define UART_GET_IP_VERSION(port) __raw_readl((port)->membase + ATMEL_US_VERSION) >>>>>> >>>>>> /* PDC registers */ >>>>>> #define UART_PUT_PTCR(port,v) __raw_writel(v, (port)->membase + ATMEL_PDC_PTCR) >>>>>> @@ -1503,6 +1504,7 @@ static void atmel_get_ip_name(struct uart_port *port) >>>>>> { >>>>>> struct atmel_uart_port *atmel_port = to_atmel_uart_port(port); >>>>>> int name = UART_GET_IP_NAME(port); >>>>>> + u32 version; >>>>>> int usart, uart; >>>>>> /* usart and uart ascii */ >>>>>> usart = 0x55534152; >>>>>> @@ -1517,7 +1519,22 @@ static void atmel_get_ip_name(struct uart_port *port) >>>>>> dev_dbg(port->dev, "This is uart\n"); >>>>>> atmel_port->is_usart = false; >>>>>> } else { >>>>>> - dev_err(port->dev, "Not supported ip name, set to uart\n"); >>>>>> + /* fallback for older SoCs: use version field */ >>>>>> + version = UART_GET_IP_VERSION(port); >>>>>> + switch (version) { >>>>>> + case 0x302: >>>>>> + case 0x10213: >>>>>> + dev_dbg(port->dev, "This version is usart\n"); >>>>>> + atmel_port->is_usart = true; >>>>>> + break; >>>>>> + case 0x203: >>>>>> + case 0x10202: >>>>>> + dev_dbg(port->dev, "This version is uart\n"); >>>>>> + atmel_port->is_usart = false; >>>>>> + break; >>>>>> + default: >>>>>> + dev_err(port->dev, "Not supported ip name nor version, set to uart\n"); >>>>> >>>>> it's not really an error a dev_warn is more oppropriate >>>> >>>> As we are already in -rc5 and that these fixes are critical for at91 >>>> platforms, I will not re-spin another patch just for this. >>>> >>>> Moreover, I have the feeling that if we end up in this case, it >>>> means that we are in big troubles because the usart/uart included in >>>> the product triggering this log is not known (I recall that newer >>>> products do not have to hit these lines of code). >>>> >>>> With these 2 reasons, I prefer to keep my patch like it is. >>>> >>>> Greg, can you consider taking these two patches as regression fixes >>>> for 3.12 (with Tested-by tag from Thomas)? >>> >>> Is this really a regression from 3.11? >> >> Yes it is. Commit id that I am referring to in patch 1/2 >> (055560b04a8cd063aea916fd083b7aec02c2adb8) hit the mainline in 3.12-rc >> time-frame. > > Ok. > >>> What's the worry about waiting >>> for 3.13-rc1, getting this correct, and then backporting them to the >>> 3.12-stable trees? >> >> It will break all older at91 in 3.12-final. Moreover, I do think that >> the actual patches are bringing an incorrect solution and I do not plan >> to have a better one (which one?) for 3.13... >> >>> I'd prefer that, so, please clean this up properly and resend it, with >>> the tested-by: lines and I'll queue them up for 3.13-rc1. >> >> I do not know what to cleanup. Anyway, tell me if you want that I resend >> the series of 2 patches with the "Tested-by" tag included. > > I thought there was some dev_warn() changes that were asked for...
Asked for, but I do not agree (my arguments above).
> Anyway, please resend them if you want me to take them for any tree as I > no longer have them in my queue.
Okay, I re-send you them right now.
Thanks, bye, -- Nicolas Ferre
| |