Re: [PATCH 30/33] serial: 8250: invert serial8250_register_8250_port() CIR condition

Andy Shevchenko
2025-06-23T07:17:15Z

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 09:05:46AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 21. 06. 25, 21:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:48:09PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero kirjoitti:
> > > On 18.06.2025 07:48, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 12:03:16PM +0200, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:

...

> > > > > + if (uart->port.type == PORT_8250_CIR) {
> > > > > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > > > > + goto unlock;
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > > + if (up->port.flags & UPF_FIXED_TYPE)
> > > > > + uart->port.type = up->port.type;
> > > >
> > > > > + if (uart->port.type != PORT_8250_CIR) {
> > > >
> > > > I admit that there tons of mysterious ways of UART initialisation, but can you
> > > > elaborate how this is not a always-true conditional?
> > >
> > > Careful here, someone had an idea in the past that this is indeed
> > > a dead code/branch and ended causing a regression [1].
>
> Right, I was confused too, but then I noticed there is:
> uart->port.type = up->port.type;
> in between the tests.
>
> > > It would definitely make sense to add a comment describing the code
> > > flow there though as it proven to bewilder people.
> >
> > Yes, this is my point between the lines. I left the code that may affect the
> > type change and the second check needs a comment explaining these cases, if any.
> > "If any" defines "always-true" or not conditional. W//o a comment this code
> > tends to be updated again and lead to a regression.
>
> ACK, I will.

Thanks!

Looking at the code again, I think it deserves actually two comments, on top of
each of the checks against PORT_8250_CIR.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko