[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] RM9000 serial driver

To: Thomas Koeller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RM9000 serial driver
From: Sergei Shtylyov <>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:18:02 +0400
Cc: Yoichi Yuasa <>,,,,, Thomas Köller <>
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: MontaVista Software Inc.
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
Hello, I wrote:

+    [PORT_RM9000] = {
+        .name        = "RM9000",
+        .fifo_size    = 16,
+        .tx_loadsz    = 16,
+        .fcr        = UART_FCR_ENABLE_FIFO | UART_FCR_R_TRIG_10,
+        .flags        = UART_CAP_FIFO,
+    },

+#define map_8250_in_reg(up, offset) \
+    (((up)->port.type == PORT_RM9000) ? regmap_in[offset] : (offset))
+#define map_8250_out_reg(up, offset) \
+    (((up)->port.type == PORT_RM9000) ? regmap_out[offset] : (offset))

   Why you're not using specific iotype for RM9000 UARTs?

Because I did not realize that this was necessary. The device registers are

   This is strange as you had an opposite example before your eyes.

   Now, it doesn't seem so strange. I thing I'm gonna agree with your point.

ioremapped, and so the standard UPIO_MEM32 seemed the right thing to use. I

   It is not.

   Actually, it should fit well, indeed.

will return to this topic further down.

   So, read on... :-)

I would like to return to the port type vs. iotype stuff once again. From what you wrote I seem to understand that the iotype is not just a method of accessing device registers, but also the primary means of discrimination between different h/w

   No, it's intended as just a method of accessing device registers.

Only relevant to 8250 driver. The method is indeed quite describabable by UPIO_MEM32.

implementations, and hence every code to support a nonstandard device must define an iotype of its own, even though one of the existing iotypes would work just fine? In my

UPIO_MEM32 doesn't actually cover your case as it corresponds to the UART with the fully 8250-compatible register set, just having 32-bit registers instead of the usual 8-bit ones. RM9000 is clearly not fully compatible to 8250 in regard to the register addresses since it has RX/TX regs, FCR and the divisor latch mapped to the separate addresses, just like Alchemy UART. And I stressed that it's the main issue with this
UART's compatibility to 8250 in my first followup.

What I didn't take into account is that iotype thing is not at all specific to 8250 driver. In the light of this, the reasons for appearance of UPIO_AU and UPIO_TSI indeed seem questionable.

case, UPIO_AU might be the best choice,

Alchemy UARTs have *different* address mapping, so UPIO_AU clearly *cannot* be used for RM9000 UART.

Would I still need to invent UPIO_RM9K,


just to have a distinct iotype, and be able to do 'if (up->port.iotype == UPIO_RM9K)'

   A good "just to".

where I now use 'if (up->port.type == PORT_RM9000)'? That seems a bit weird.


   Indeed, I now see that this is weird.


WBR, Sergei

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