Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] serial: 8250: Handle implementations not having TEMT interrupt using em485

Andy Shevchenko
2020-05-18T15:19:30Z

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 11:56:09PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> From: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@micronovasrl.com>
>
> Some 8250 ports have a TEMT interrupt but it's not a part of the 8250
> standard, instead only available on some implementations.
>
> The current em485 implementation does not work on ports without it.
> The only chance to make it work is to loop-read on LSR register.
>
> So add UART_CAP_TEMT to mark 8250 uarts having this interrupt,
> update all current em485 users with that capability and add
> a loop-reading during __stop_tx_rs485() on uarts not having it.
>
> As __stop_tx_rs485() can also be called from a hard-irq context the
> loop-reading is split. If the fifo clears in under 100us in
> __stop_tx_rs485() itself just the regular stop calls get executed.
> If it takes longer, re-use the existing stop-timer infrastructure
> but with only a 10us timer to again poll the LSR registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@micronovasrl.com>

> [moved to use added UART_CAP_TEMT, use readx_poll_timeout]

I can't parse first part...

Also, shouldn't it be rather like
[heiko: ...]
?

...

> +static inline int __get_lsr(struct uart_8250_port *p)
> +{
> + return serial_in(p, UART_LSR);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int __wait_for_empty(struct uart_8250_port *p, u64 timeout_us)
> +{
> + int lsr;
> +
> + return readx_poll_timeout(__get_lsr, p, lsr,
> + (lsr & BOTH_EMPTY) == BOTH_EMPTY,
> + 0, timeout_us);
> +}

...

> + int ret = __wait_for_empty(p, 100);

Do you expect something different than 100? If no, perhaps for now just put it
inside the function as a constant?

> + if (ret < 0) {
> + restart = HRTIMER_RESTART;
> + goto out;
> + }

...

> + } else if (!(p->capabilities & UART_CAP_TEMT) &&
> + __wait_for_empty(p, 100)) {

I would leave it on one line even if you leave 100 as a parameter, but it's up to you.

...

> + if (p->capabilities & UART_CAP_TEMT) {
> + if ((lsr & BOTH_EMPTY) != BOTH_EMPTY)
> + return;
> + }

if (a) {
if (b) {
...
}
}

is equivalent to

if (a && b) {
...
}

But it's up to you which one to choose.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko