Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] UART slave device bus

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2016-08-18T10:53:27Z

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:30:32PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> >> Currently, devices attached via a UART are not well supported in the
> >> kernel. The problem is the device support is done in tty line disciplines,
> >> various platform drivers to handle some sideband, and in userspace with
> >> utilities such as hciattach.
> >>
> >> There have been several attempts to improve support, but they suffer from
> >> still being tied into the tty layer and/or abusing the platform bus. This
> >> is a prototype to show creating a proper UART bus for UART devices. It is
> >> tied into the serial core (really struct uart_port) below the tty layer
> >> in order to use existing serial drivers.
> >>
> >> This is functional with minimal testing using the loopback driver and
> >> pl011 (w/o DMA) UART under QEMU (modified to add a DT node for the slave
> >> device). It still needs lots of work and polish.
> >>
> >> TODOs:
> >> - Figure out the port locking. mutex plus spinlock plus refcounting? I'm
> >> hoping all that complexity is from the tty layer and not needed here.
> >
> > It should be.
> >
> >> - Split out the controller for uart_ports into separate driver. Do we see
> >> a need for controller drivers that are not standard serial drivers?
> >
> > What do you mean by "controller" drivers here? I didn't understand them
> > in the code.
> >
> >> - Implement/test the removal paths
> >> - Fix the receive callbacks for more than character at a time (i.e. DMA)
> >> - Need better receive buffering than just a simple circular buffer or
> >> perhaps a different receive interface (e.g. direct to client buffer)?
> >
> > Why? Is the code as-is slow?
> >
> >> - Test with other UART drivers
> >> - Convert a real driver/line discipline over to UART bus.
> >
> > That's going to be the real test, I recommend trying that as soon as
> > possible as it will show where the real pain points are :)
>
> maybe we can get the Intel LnP driver ported over and see how that one
> works out. It is one of the more complex ones when it comes to
> bootloader and firmware loading. Maybe Loic can take a stab at this.
> We would then also see how we can map the ACPI tables into a driver.

Yes, I was going to complain about the OF-only bent of this patch, but I
figured it would get fixed up once Rob started to use a "real" machine
for his testing of this code :)

> >> Before I spend more time on this, I'm looking mainly for feedback on the
> >> general direction and structure (the interface with the existing serial
> >> drivers in particular).
> >
> > Yes, I like the idea (minor nit, you still have SPMI in a lot of places
> > instead of UART), so I recommend keeping going with it.
> >
> >> drivers/uart/Kconfig | 17 ++
> >> drivers/uart/Makefile | 3 +
> >> drivers/uart/core.c | 458 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> drivers/uart/loopback.c | 72 ++++++
> >
> > Why not just put this in drivers/tty/uart/ ?
>
> Is it really then a TTY at all. Would be the UART become the basic
> core for a TTY?

Hm, interesting idea. Not for all TTYs of course, but for those that
are on UART devices, maybe? How would a usb-serial device fit into that
picture?

> Having tty/uart/ seems a bit backward. Then again, it is just a
> directory name ;)

And as we know, naming is hard :)

thanks,

greg k-h