[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] tty: 8250: handle USR for DesignWare 8250 with correct acces

To: Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: 8250: handle USR for DesignWare 8250 with correct accessors
From: Shane McDonald <>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:58:20 -0600
Cc: Jamie Iles <>,, Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,, Marc St-Jean <>, Anoop P A <>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I01LqixJctSzwD3TaBgkRvrn6lkxN3TuAPE1uZklsMQ=; b=mmyCc1HDLGGAqbDVy00DoTM/9uxgB/2zWIcdgRFNjg4x7AFijZDr3FZBDcpsrFZA05 6ZqyVR7nak28CQdQz+Cok44dhAQsb9DLZVnL+Nf7Pw4wLUk1OBuu9vAFXsPw1i2qZMU1 1HS8lvMcOI452ezBWYWScuHp1mJQBxF3F1soI=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ufRMSFBtPF2jVrmOUSpOPbNDPUOoosycfTi+xUIIO0YSOz0Co3a2+fSM7tjnfVqkCD JqT/aAQNPOx+lpfOEuAKmwQXgH+hh8tAAJS3Bv19c4+uoQN7/CGfTqBbvPQMOSD0rJzu HUbyfRRdIamwovj/fr9VTcnQuxndG2prX4Gzc=
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <>
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Ralf Baechle <> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:48:45AM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> The original read access was for a read access at offset 0xc0 from the
> base address.  Your patch changes this to offset 0x1f * 4 = 0x7c.
> If you look at arch/mips/include/asm/pmc-sierra/msp71xx/msp_regs.h there's
> #define MSP_UART0_BASE          (MSP_SLP_BASE + 0x100)
>                                        /* UART0 controller base        */
> #define MSP_BCPY_CTRL_BASE      (MSP_SLP_BASE + 0x120)
>                                        /* Block Copy controller base   */
> So there are just 0x20 of address space reserved for that UART.  Me thinks
> that PMC-Sierra clamped the 256 byte address space of the DesignWare APB
> UART to what is standard for 16550 class UARTs, 8 registers which at a
> shift of 4 is 0x20 bytes and the status register being accesses is really
> something else.  I'd guess PMC-Sierra just remapped the register to
> another address.
> On a 2nd thought I wonder if the restricted address space of the PMC-Sierra
> variant and the strange remapping would justify treating it as a subvariant
> of the DW APB UART, rename it to UPIO_PMC_MSP_DWAPB, hardcode the access to
> the remapped status register.  And get rid of the unused UPIO_DWAPB32 ...
> I've cced a few people who should know more about this.

Marc and I were originally responsible for this code, but we're no longer
at PMC-Sierra, and I don't remember the details.  If Anoop isn't able
confirm Ralf's suspicions regarding the smaller address space
and remapped register, I'll see if I can track down some former co-workers
that could shed some light on this.

Ralf's 2nd thought makes perfect sense to me, though.


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