From: "George G. Davis" <gdavis@mvista.com>
To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: Add spin_lock_init() in 8250 early_serial_setup() to init port.lock
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:25:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060202012543.GS7405@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060201230013.GL3072@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:00:13PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:45:49AM -0500, George G. Davis wrote:
> > But uart_add_one_port() intentionally does not spin_lock_init() the
> > port.lock of the serial console device under the assumption that
> > it is already done.
>
> Yes, and there's a bug in there atm...
Which is resolved via:
ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.16-rc1/2.6.16-rc1-mm4/broken-out/serial-initialize-spinlock-for-port-failed-to-setup.patch
Since the above fixes the problem, this patch is withdrawn.
> > serial8250_console_init()
> > serial8250_isa_init_ports()
> > if (first)
> > spin_lock_init() /* port.lock init */
> This initialisation is actually pointless here.
Agreed, when serial-initialize-spinlock-for-port-failed-to-setup.patch is
applied, the above spin_lock_init() is no longer required.
> > register_console()
> > serial8250_console_setup() /* -ENODEV */
> > ...
> > rest_init()
> > ...
> > /* arch_initcalls */
> > early_serial_setup()
>
> This is where it goes wrong. Don't call early_serial_setup() after
> "early". Use a platform device instead.
Ok, this was perhaps a bad example, some machines call early_serial_setup()
much earlier via setup_arch() or sooner. This case used an arch_initcall
which is admittedly rather late to be calling early_* funcs. My bad...
> I absolutely detest the number of ways to initialise an 8250 port -
> I'd like there to be only one way, but that doesn't satisfy everyone.
> That one way is via platform devices.
FWIW, I agree but had to use early_serial_setup() for other reasons (kgdb8250
vs. standard 8250 serial port fights in an earlier 2.6 kernel release). Well,
aside from my brain damaged use of early_serial_setup(), there was a real
bug initialising the serial console spinlock. So it wasn't a total waste
of time. : )
> Please use that method in
> preference to everything else, _especially_ from architecture code.
FWIW, I also prefer to see early_serial_setup() killed off and force current
users to register 8250 ports via platform devices. But I'm stuck with
early_serial_setup() in my current case.
Thanks for your comments.
--
Regards,
George
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-02 1:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-26 3:24 [PATCH] serial: Add spin_lock_init() in 8250 early_serial_setup() to init port.lock George G. Davis
2006-01-30 15:39 ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-02-01 15:45 ` George G. Davis
2006-02-01 16:01 ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-02-01 17:00 ` George G. Davis
2006-02-01 23:00 ` Russell King
2006-02-02 1:25 ` George G. Davis [this message]
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=20060202012543.GS7405@mvista.com \
--to=gdavis@mvista.com \
--cc=anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox