linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] serial driver PMC MSP71xx, kernel linux-mips.git mast er

To: Marc St-Jean <Marc_St-Jean@pmc-sierra.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial driver PMC MSP71xx, kernel linux-mips.git mast er
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:33:03 +0300
Cc: Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <45B68E23.7080800@pmc-sierra.com>
Organization: MontaVista Software Inc.
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <45B68E23.7080800@pmc-sierra.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
Hello.

Marc St-Jean wrote:

> 2. Fix for Busy Detect on LCR write
> 3. Workaround for interrupt/data concurrency issue

>       case UPIO_MEM:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PMC_MSP
> +             /* Save the LCR value so it can be re-written when a
> +              * Busy Detect interrupt occurs. */
> +             if (dwapb_offset == UART_LCR)
> +                     up->dwapb_lcr = value;
> +#endif
>               writeb(value, up->port.membase + offset);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PMC_MSP
> +             /* Re-read the IER to ensure any interrupt disabling has
> +              * completed before proceeding with ISR. */
> +             if (dwapb_offset == UART_IER)
> +                     value = serial_in(up, dwapb_offset);
> +#endif
>               break;

This I would hope you can hide in the platform specific
serial_in/serial_out functions. If you write the UART_LCR save it in
serial_out(), if you read IER etc.

I couldn't find hooks for platform specific serial_in/out functions.

   It's because there are none. :-)

Do you mean using the up->port.iotype's in serial_in/out from 8250.c?

   Not sure what Alan meant, but this seems the only option for now.

 >>And we might want to add a void * for board specific insanity to the 8250
structures if we really have to so you can hang your brain damage
privately off that ?

Sounds good to me, it would give us a location to store the address of the
UART_STATUS_REG required by this UART variant.

I doubt we really need to *store* it somewhere. Isn't it an fixed offset from UART's base (I haven't seen the header)?

Marc

MBR, Sergei

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>