Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Apr 2021 02:36:11 -0500 | From | Zev Weiss <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] drivers/tty/serial/8250: add DT property for aspeed vuart sirq polarity |
| |
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:34:04AM CDT, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > >On Thu, 1 Apr 2021, at 15:48, Zev Weiss wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:15:44PM CDT, Joel Stanley wrote: >> >On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 00:57, Zev Weiss <zev@bewilderbeest.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> This provides a simple boolean to use instead of the deprecated >> >> aspeed,sirq-polarity-sense property. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Zev Weiss <zev@bewilderbeest.net> >> >> --- >> >> drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c | 3 +++ >> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c >> >> index c33e02cbde93..e5ef9f957f9a 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c >> >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c >> >> @@ -482,6 +482,9 @@ static int aspeed_vuart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> of_node_put(sirq_polarity_sense_args.np); >> >> } >> >> >> >> + if (of_property_read_bool(np, "aspeed,sirq-active-high")) >> >> + aspeed_vuart_set_sirq_polarity(vuart, 1); >> > >> >This assumes the default is always low, so we don't need a property to >> >set it to that state? >> > >> >Would it make more sense to have the property describe if it's high or >> >low? (I'm happy for the answer to be "no", as we've gotten by for the >> >past few years without it). >> > >> >> Yeah, that sounds like better way to approach it -- I think I'll >> rearrange as Andrew suggested in >> https://lore.kernel.org/openbmc/d66753ee-7db2-41e5-9fe5-762b1ab678bc@www.fastmail.com/ >> >> >This brings up another point. We already have the sysfs file for >> >setting the lpc address, from userspace. In OpenBMC land this can be >> >set with obmc-console-client (/etc/obmc-console.conf). Should we add >> >support to that application for setting the irq polarity too, and do >> >away with device tree descriptions? >> > >> >> I guess I might lean slightly toward keeping the DT description so that >> if for whatever reason obmc-console-server flakes out and doesn't start >> you're better positioned to try banging on /dev/ttyS* manually if you're >> desperate. Though I suppose that in turn might imply that I'm arguing >> for adding DT properties for lpc_address and sirq too, > >Why not just adopt exactly what I've done with KCS, where we have aspeed,lpc-io-reg and aspeed,lpc-interrupts? > >Andrew
Ah -- yes, that does sound like a sensible approach. I'll send a v3 with that worked in.
Zev
| |