Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] drivers/tty/serial/8250: add DT property for aspeed vuart sirq polarity

Zev Weiss
2021-04-01T05:19:31Z

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:15:44PM CDT, Joel Stanley wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 00:57, Zev Weiss <zev@bewilderbeest.net> wrote:
>>
>> This provides a simple boolean to use instead of the deprecated
>> aspeed,sirq-polarity-sense property.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zev Weiss <zev@bewilderbeest.net>
>> ---
>> drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c
>> index c33e02cbde93..e5ef9f957f9a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c
>> @@ -482,6 +482,9 @@ static int aspeed_vuart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> of_node_put(sirq_polarity_sense_args.np);
>> }
>>
>> + if (of_property_read_bool(np, "aspeed,sirq-active-high"))
>> + aspeed_vuart_set_sirq_polarity(vuart, 1);
>
>This assumes the default is always low, so we don't need a property to
>set it to that state?
>
>Would it make more sense to have the property describe if it's high or
>low? (I'm happy for the answer to be "no", as we've gotten by for the
>past few years without it).
>

Yeah, that sounds like better way to approach it -- I think I'll
rearrange as Andrew suggested in
https://lore.kernel.org/openbmc/d66753ee-7db2-41e5-9fe5-762b1ab678bc@www.fastmail.com/

>This brings up another point. We already have the sysfs file for
>setting the lpc address, from userspace. In OpenBMC land this can be
>set with obmc-console-client (/etc/obmc-console.conf). Should we add
>support to that application for setting the irq polarity too, and do
>away with device tree descriptions?
>

I guess I might lean slightly toward keeping the DT description so that
if for whatever reason obmc-console-server flakes out and doesn't start
you're better positioned to try banging on /dev/ttyS* manually if you're
desperate. Though I suppose that in turn might imply that I'm arguing
for adding DT properties for lpc_address and sirq too, and if you're
really that desperate you can just fiddle with sysfs anyway, so...shrug?
I could be convinced either way fairly easily.

Zev