From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
To: Rengarajan.S@microchip.com, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@microchip.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 tty] 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Refactor TX Burst code to use pre-existing APIs
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:26:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <254db026-5f9d-497f-ac44-c81d9d5947cf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e93048e64c3f8aa2731575d4b296c473e8dadb82.camel@microchip.com>
On 23. 02. 24, 10:21, Rengarajan.S@microchip.com wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 07:08 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>> know the content is safe
>>
>> On 22. 02. 24, 14:49, Rengarajan S wrote:
>>> Updated the TX Burst implementation by changing the circular buffer
>>> processing with the pre-existing APIs in kernel. Also updated
>>> conditional
>>> statements and alignment issues for better readability.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> so why are you keeping the nested double loop?
>>
>
> Hi, in order to differentiate Burst mode handling with byte mode had
> seperate loops for both. Since, having single while loop also does not
> align with rx implementation (where we have seperate handling for burst
> and byte) have retained the double loop.
So obviously, align RX to a single loop if possible. The current TX code
is very hard to follow and sort of unmaintainable (and buggy). And IMO
it's unnecessary as I proposed [1]. And even if RX cannot be one loop,
you still can make TX easy to read as the two need not be the same.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/b8325c3f-bf5b-4c55-8dce-ef395edce251@kernel.org/
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-23 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-22 13:49 [PATCH v1 tty] 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Refactor TX Burst code to use pre-existing APIs Rengarajan S
2024-02-22 16:01 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-02-23 9:22 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-02-23 6:08 ` Jiri Slaby
2024-02-23 9:21 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-02-23 9:26 ` Jiri Slaby [this message]
2024-02-23 9:36 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-03-04 4:37 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-03-04 6:19 ` Jiri Slaby
2024-03-05 4:15 ` Rengarajan.S
2024-03-05 7:19 ` Jiri Slaby
2024-03-06 6:55 ` Rengarajan.S
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=254db026-5f9d-497f-ac44-c81d9d5947cf@kernel.org \
--to=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@microchip.com \
--cc=Rengarajan.S@microchip.com \
--cc=Tharunkumar.Pasumarthi@microchip.com \
--cc=UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@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