Re: [PATCH 1/8] serial: core: only get RS485 termination gpio if supported

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 06:08:56PM +0200, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> On 23.06.22 at 11:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 4:00 AM Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> On 22.06.22 at 19:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:46:52PM +0200, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> >>>> From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> In uart_get_rs485_mode() only try to get a termination GPIO if RS485 bus
> >>>> termination is supported by the driver.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure I got the usefulness of this change.
> >>> We request GPIO line as optional, so if one is defined it in the DT/ACPI, then
> >>> they probably want to (opportunistically) have it>
> >>>
> >>> With your change it's possible to have a DTS where GPIO line defined in a
> >>> broken way and user won't ever know about it, if they are using platforms
> >>> without termination support.
> >>
> >> This behavior is not introduced with this patch, also in the current code the driver
> >> wont inform the user if it does not make use erroneous defined termination GPIO.
> >
> > It does. If a previously stale GPIO resource may have deferred a probe
> > and hence one may debug why the driver is not working, after this
> > change one may put a stale GPIO resource into DT/ACPI and have nothing
> > in the result. Meaning the change relaxes validation which I consider
> > is not good.
> >
> 
> Ok I see the point. So what about changing it to:

You mean adding below after the existing code in the module?

> 	if (port->rs485_term_gpio &&
> 	    !(port->rs485_supported->flags & SER_RS485_TERMINATE_BUS)) {
> 		dev_warn(port->dev,
> 			"%s (%d): RS485 termination gpio not supported by driver\n",
> 			port->name, port->line);
> 		devm_gpiod_put(dev, port->rs485_term_gpio);
> 		port->rs485_term_gpio = NULL;
> 	}
> 
> This would also be consistent to the warnings we print in uart_sanitize_serial_rs485() for invalid
> RS485 settings.

Probably it's okay, but I dunno we have much on this to gain. Users may start
complaining of this (harmless) warning. I leave it to others to comment.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko