| Message ID | 20220622154659.8710-8-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fixes and cleanup for RS485 | expand |
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com> > > In uart_set_rs485_config() the serial core already assigns the passed > serial_rs485 struct to the uart port. > > So remove the assignment in the drivers rs485_config() function to avoid > redundancy. > > Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com> > --- > drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c > index ab2c5b2a1ce8..857e010d01dc 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c > @@ -591,7 +591,6 @@ static int ar933x_config_rs485(struct uart_port *port, > dev_err(port->dev, "RS485 needs rts-gpio\n"); > return 1; > } > - port->rs485 = *rs485conf; > return 0; > } Hmm, I realize that for some reason I missed cleaning up this particular driver after introducing the serial_rs485 sanitization. It shouldn't need that preceeding if block either because ar933x_no_rs485 gets applied if there's no rts_gpiod so the core clears SER_RS485_ENABLED.
On 25.06.22 at 12:14, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2022, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > >> From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com> >> >> In uart_set_rs485_config() the serial core already assigns the passed >> serial_rs485 struct to the uart port. >> >> So remove the assignment in the drivers rs485_config() function to avoid >> redundancy. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com> >> --- >> drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c | 1 - >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c >> index ab2c5b2a1ce8..857e010d01dc 100644 >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c >> @@ -591,7 +591,6 @@ static int ar933x_config_rs485(struct uart_port *port, >> dev_err(port->dev, "RS485 needs rts-gpio\n"); >> return 1; >> } >> - port->rs485 = *rs485conf; >> return 0; >> } > > Hmm, I realize that for some reason I missed cleaning up this particular > driver after introducing the serial_rs485 sanitization. It shouldn't need > that preceeding if block either because ar933x_no_rs485 gets applied if > there's no rts_gpiod so the core clears SER_RS485_ENABLED. > I think we still need that "if" in case that RS485 was not enabled at driver startup (no rs485-enabled-at-boot-time) and no RTS GPIO was defined but then RS485 is enabled via TIOCSRS485. Maybe in ar933x_uart_probe() if ((port->rs485.flags & SER_RS485_ENABLED) && !up->rts_gpiod) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "lacking rts-gpio, disabling RS485\n"); port->rs485.flags &= ~SER_RS485_ENABLED; port->rs485_supported = &ar933x_no_rs485; } should rather be if (!up->rts_gpiod) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "lacking rts-gpio, disabling RS485\n"); port->rs485.flags &= ~SER_RS485_ENABLED; port->rs485_supported = &ar933x_no_rs485; } Regards, Lino
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > On 25.06.22 at 12:14, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2022, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > > > >> From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com> > >> > >> In uart_set_rs485_config() the serial core already assigns the passed > >> serial_rs485 struct to the uart port. > >> > >> So remove the assignment in the drivers rs485_config() function to avoid > >> redundancy. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c | 1 - > >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c > >> index ab2c5b2a1ce8..857e010d01dc 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c > >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c > >> @@ -591,7 +591,6 @@ static int ar933x_config_rs485(struct uart_port *port, > >> dev_err(port->dev, "RS485 needs rts-gpio\n"); > >> return 1; > >> } > >> - port->rs485 = *rs485conf; > >> return 0; > >> } > > > > Hmm, I realize that for some reason I missed cleaning up this particular > > driver after introducing the serial_rs485 sanitization. It shouldn't need > > that preceeding if block either because ar933x_no_rs485 gets applied if > > there's no rts_gpiod so the core clears SER_RS485_ENABLED. > > I think we still need that "if" in case that RS485 was not enabled at driver > startup (no rs485-enabled-at-boot-time) and no RTS GPIO was defined but then > RS485 is enabled via TIOCSRS485. > > Maybe in ar933x_uart_probe() > > if ((port->rs485.flags & SER_RS485_ENABLED) && > !up->rts_gpiod) { > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "lacking rts-gpio, disabling RS485\n"); > port->rs485.flags &= ~SER_RS485_ENABLED; > port->rs485_supported = &ar933x_no_rs485; > } > > should rather be I think it would be better (and what I should have done while moving the check there in the first place but I missed it). In addition, however, it would be useful to not print unnecessarily: > if (!up->rts_gpiod) { if (port->rs485.flags & SER_RS485_ENABLED) { > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "lacking rts-gpio, disabling RS485\n"); > port->rs485.flags &= ~SER_RS485_ENABLED; } > port->rs485_supported = &ar933x_no_rs485; > }
On 27.06.22 10:14, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jun 2022, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > >> On 25.06.22 at 12:14, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: >>> >>>> From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com> >>>> >>>> In uart_set_rs485_config() the serial core already assigns the passed >>>> serial_rs485 struct to the uart port. >>>> >>>> So remove the assignment in the drivers rs485_config() function to avoid >>>> redundancy. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c | 1 - >>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c >>>> index ab2c5b2a1ce8..857e010d01dc 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c >>>> @@ -591,7 +591,6 @@ static int ar933x_config_rs485(struct uart_port *port, >>>> dev_err(port->dev, "RS485 needs rts-gpio\n"); >>>> return 1; >>>> } >>>> - port->rs485 = *rs485conf; >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>> >>> Hmm, I realize that for some reason I missed cleaning up this particular >>> driver after introducing the serial_rs485 sanitization. It shouldn't need >>> that preceeding if block either because ar933x_no_rs485 gets applied if >>> there's no rts_gpiod so the core clears SER_RS485_ENABLED. >> >> I think we still need that "if" in case that RS485 was not enabled at driver >> startup (no rs485-enabled-at-boot-time) and no RTS GPIO was defined but then >> RS485 is enabled via TIOCSRS485. >> >> Maybe in ar933x_uart_probe() >> >> if ((port->rs485.flags & SER_RS485_ENABLED) && >> !up->rts_gpiod) { >> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "lacking rts-gpio, disabling RS485\n"); >> port->rs485.flags &= ~SER_RS485_ENABLED; >> port->rs485_supported = &ar933x_no_rs485; >> } >> >> should rather be > > I think it would be better (and what I should have done while moving the > check there in the first place but I missed it). In addition, however, it > would be useful to not print unnecessarily: > >> if (!up->rts_gpiod) { > > if (port->rs485.flags & SER_RS485_ENABLED) { > >> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "lacking rts-gpio, disabling RS485\n"); >> port->rs485.flags &= ~SER_RS485_ENABLED; > > } Right. I will send a fix for this with the new version of my series. Regards, Lino
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c index ab2c5b2a1ce8..857e010d01dc 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c @@ -591,7 +591,6 @@ static int ar933x_config_rs485(struct uart_port *port, dev_err(port->dev, "RS485 needs rts-gpio\n"); return 1; } - port->rs485 = *rs485conf; return 0; }