From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: alan@linux.intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kevin.wells@nxp.com, srinivas.bakki@nxp.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, arnd@arndb.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial/of-serial: Add 16654 chip to compatible string list
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 18:27:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FC3A768.3060208@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120528150311.GA28290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 28/05/12 17:03, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> Initially, with my RFC patch, there was an #ifdef for bigger FIFO in
>> case of LPC32xx where we have a 16550A variant with 64 byte fifos.
>
> What are all the differences? Is it just a larger FIFO?
Yes, this is how it's summarized in the manual (LPC32xx SoC).
>> So maybe 16750 is the better choice for me, anyway. Already supported in
>> of-serial. Works for now, but need more testing. Another hint is that
>> 16750 is advertised as "IP core for Soc" which matches the case of LPC32xx.
>
> 16750 also has automatic hardware flow control support, selectable through
> bit 5 in the MCR register. If your UART has that, then it's probably a
> 16750 derivative rather than a 16550 or 16650 derivative.
>
> 16650s have an EFR register at offset 2, selectable by writing 0xBF into
> the LCR register, which the 16750 doesn't have. 16650 also has automatic
> hardware flow control, bit this is selected through a couple of bits in
> the EFR.
The 4 LPC32xx's "Standard" UARTs have neither of those.
Is it ok to use "ns16650", i.e. PORT_16650, or do I need to introduce a
FIFO depth configuration?
Thanks in advance,
Roland
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: stigge@antcom.de (Roland Stigge)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] serial/of-serial: Add 16654 chip to compatible string list
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 18:27:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FC3A768.3060208@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120528150311.GA28290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 28/05/12 17:03, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> Initially, with my RFC patch, there was an #ifdef for bigger FIFO in
>> case of LPC32xx where we have a 16550A variant with 64 byte fifos.
>
> What are all the differences? Is it just a larger FIFO?
Yes, this is how it's summarized in the manual (LPC32xx SoC).
>> So maybe 16750 is the better choice for me, anyway. Already supported in
>> of-serial. Works for now, but need more testing. Another hint is that
>> 16750 is advertised as "IP core for Soc" which matches the case of LPC32xx.
>
> 16750 also has automatic hardware flow control support, selectable through
> bit 5 in the MCR register. If your UART has that, then it's probably a
> 16750 derivative rather than a 16550 or 16650 derivative.
>
> 16650s have an EFR register at offset 2, selectable by writing 0xBF into
> the LCR register, which the 16750 doesn't have. 16650 also has automatic
> hardware flow control, bit this is selected through a couple of bits in
> the EFR.
The 4 LPC32xx's "Standard" UARTs have neither of those.
Is it ok to use "ns16650", i.e. PORT_16650, or do I need to introduce a
FIFO depth configuration?
Thanks in advance,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-28 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-28 9:58 [PATCH] serial/of-serial: Add 16654 chip to compatible string list Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 9:58 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 10:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-28 10:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-28 11:20 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 11:20 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 15:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-28 15:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-28 16:27 ` Roland Stigge [this message]
2012-05-28 16:27 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 16:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-28 16:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-28 17:48 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 17:48 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 18:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-28 18:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-28 18:17 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 18:17 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 18:17 ` Roland Stigge
2012-05-28 18:39 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-28 18:39 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
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=4FC3A768.3060208@antcom.de \
--to=stigge@antcom.de \
--cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kevin.wells@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=srinivas.bakki@nxp.com \
/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.