Re: [PATCH 0/4] 8250: DMA Fixes

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 1430 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 01:50:38PM +0200, Ilpo J�rvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 01:07:04PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > Here are a number of 8250 DMA related fixes. The last one seems the
> > > most serious problem able to corrupt the payload ordering.
> > > 
> > > Ilpo Järvinen (4):
> > >   serial: 8250: Fall back to non-DMA Rx if IIR_RDI occurs
> > 
> > 8250_port?
> > 
> > >   serial: 8250_lpss: Configure DMA also w/o DMA filter
> > >   serial: 8250_lpss: Use 16B DMA burst with Elkhart Lake
> > >   serial: 8250: Flush DMA Rx on RLSI
> > 
> > 8250_port?
> 
> Why?

> To me this 8250_core/port split is still integral part of the same 
> 8250 even if they're in the end technically loaded into different modules
> or the code is in a different file. There's even some trickery to access 
> internals of the other part to workaround the circular module dependency 
> logic that would otherwise prevent the split (like we learned not so long 
> time ago with that setup_irq change).

> I can start to use 8250_port if you insist but it seems pointless 5 extra 
> characters out from a resource that is scarse to begin with, IMHO (the 
> summary line is not that long).

No strong opinion here, I just follow (in my patches) the following logic:
- if it touches a single file, I use full prefix,
- otherwise I use 8250

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko