From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
To: Rengarajan.S@microchip.com, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@microchip.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 tty] 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Refactor TX Burst code to use pre-existing APIs
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:26:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <254db026-5f9d-497f-ac44-c81d9d5947cf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e93048e64c3f8aa2731575d4b296c473e8dadb82.camel@microchip.com>
On 23. 02. 24, 10:21, Rengarajan.S@microchip.com wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 07:08 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>> know the content is safe
>>
>> On 22. 02. 24, 14:49, Rengarajan S wrote:
>>> Updated the TX Burst implementation by changing the circular buffer
>>> processing with the pre-existing APIs in kernel. Also updated
>>> conditional
>>> statements and alignment issues for better readability.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> so why are you keeping the nested double loop?
>>
>
> Hi, in order to differentiate Burst mode handling with byte mode had
> seperate loops for both. Since, having single while loop also does not
> align with rx implementation (where we have seperate handling for burst
> and byte) have retained the double loop.
So obviously, align RX to a single loop if possible. The current TX code
is very hard to follow and sort of unmaintainable (and buggy). And IMO
it's unnecessary as I proposed [1]. And even if RX cannot be one loop,
you still can make TX easy to read as the two need not be the same.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/b8325c3f-bf5b-4c55-8dce-ef395edce251@kernel.org/
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-23 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-22 13:49 [PATCH v1 tty] 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Refactor TX Burst code to use pre-existing APIs Rengarajan S
2024-02-22 16:01 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-02-23 9:22 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-02-23 6:08 ` Jiri Slaby
2024-02-23 9:21 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-02-23 9:26 ` Jiri Slaby [this message]
2024-02-23 9:36 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-03-04 4:37 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-03-04 6:19 ` Jiri Slaby
2024-03-05 4:15 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-03-05 7:19 ` Jiri Slaby
2024-03-06 6:55 ` Rengarajan.S
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=254db026-5f9d-497f-ac44-c81d9d5947cf@kernel.org \
--to=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@microchip.com \
--cc=Rengarajan.S@microchip.com \
--cc=Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@microchip.com \
--cc=UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.