Hello Haavard,
> I'll give it a shot, but first I have some comments on your other
> patches.
Good news someone is working on this bug again. Also good news you
already found a bug in there.
> Btw, it would be nice if patches that affect more or less
> architecture-independent drivers were posted to linux-kernel (added to
> Cc.)
Not really architecture independant, I believe, because thos are
drivers for peripherals _inside_ Atmel Cores ;-)
> Also, it would be easier to review if you posted just one patch per
> e-mail. I'm going to cut & paste a bit from your attachments.
I know, but I have some troubles to get 'quilt mail' to work from
behind a proxy server, and attaching to a mail, at least it does not
corrupt the contents of the patches.
> > 4) For RT only: atmel_serial_irqf_nodelay.patch can be applied
> > anywhere after 1 and 2
>
> I'll ignore this for now.
OK.
> > +#define lread(port) __raw_readl(port)
> > +#define lwrite(v, port) __raw_writel(v, port)
>
> Why is this necessary, and what does 'l' stand for?
There is a huge list of macros below these definitions. By doing it
this way, the macros still fit on 80 characters wide, while without
them, I had split up the macros over several lines, which does not
make it more readable. That's all.
'l' refers at the last letter of __raw_readl, and writel. Nothing special.
>
> > - struct uart_port uart; /* uart */
> > - struct clk *clk; /* uart clock */
> > - unsigned short suspended; /* is port suspended? */
> > - int break_active; /* break being received */
> > + struct uart_port uart; /* uart */
> > + struct clk *clk; /* uart clock */
> > + unsigned short suspended; /* is port suspended? */
> > + int break_active; /* break being received */
>
> Looks like you're adding one or more spaces before each TAB here. Why
> is that an improvement?
I used scripts/Lindent to reformat the file, and then I removed the
quirks Lindent put in the file. Apparantly I missed that one.
> These conflict with David Brownell's "atmel_serial build warnings
> begone" patch which was merged into mainline a few weeks ago.
Hmm, I seem to have missed that one. Why is it not there in a
big-AT91-patch from Andrew?
> > /*
> > + * receive interrupt handler.
> > + */
> > +static inline void
> > +atmel_handle_receive(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int pending)
>
> Please drop "inline" here. The compiler will do it automatically if it
> has only one caller, and if it at some point gets several callers, we
> might not want to inline it after all.
Funny, This was the first thing that Andrew started complaining about.
He suggested to put an inline there which I had not. I already
mentioned that this was against the CodingStyle, but I also mentioned
that I did not wanted to start a fight about this :-)
So, to prevent a discussion, I added the inline...
> > @@ -422,7 +454,9 @@ static int atmel_startup(struct uart_por
> > /*
> > * Allocate the IRQ
> > */
> > - retval = request_irq(port->irq, atmel_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED, "atmel_serial", port);
> > + retval =
> > + request_irq(port->irq, atmel_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED,
> > + "atmel_serial", port);
>
> I think request_irq() belongs on the same line as "retval =".
I blame scripts/Lindent ;-)
> Please use TABs, not spaces. Might as well remove those comments...they
> don't seem all that useful.
Go ahead...
I did not remove any comment, even if they appear useless to me. I am
not the maintainer of this driver, and just wanted to improve it, so
that it was able of running on Preempt-RT.
Before being able to submit the change that really mattered to me, I
had to make the driver pass the scripts/checkpatch.pl check, otherwise
the patch-that-matters would be completely unreadable.
>
> > + while (!(UART_GET_CSR(port) & ATMEL_US_TXEMPTY))
> > + barrier();
>
> Should probably use cpu_relax(), but it's probably out of scope for a
> codingstyle cleanup patch (and I don't think it matters on AVR32 or
> ARM.)
Agree.
> > /*
> > - * First, save IMR and then disable interrupts
> > + * First, save IMR and then disable interrupts
> > */
> > imr = UART_GET_IMR(port); /* get interrupt mask */
> > UART_PUT_IDR(port, ATMEL_US_RXRDY | ATMEL_US_TXRDY);
> > @@ -790,30 +828,32 @@ static void atmel_console_write(struct c
> > uart_console_write(port, s, count, atmel_console_putchar);
> >
> > /*
> > - * Finally, wait for transmitter to become empty
> > - * and restore IMR
> > + * Finally, wait for transmitter to become empty
> > + * and restore IMR
> > */
>
> Looks like you're replacing TABs with spaces. Why?
????
> > -// TODO: CR is a write-only register
> > -// unsigned int cr;
> > +/* TODO: CR is a write-only register
> > +// unsigned int cr;
> > //
> > -// cr = UART_GET_CR(port) & (ATMEL_US_RXEN | ATMEL_US_TXEN);
> > -// if (cr == (ATMEL_US_RXEN | ATMEL_US_TXEN)) {
> > -// /* ok, the port was enabled */
> > -// }
> > +// cr = UART_GET_CR(port) & (ATMEL_US_RXEN | ATMEL_US_TXEN);
> > +// if (cr == (ATMEL_US_RXEN | ATMEL_US_TXEN)) {
> > +// / * ok, the port was enabled * /
> > +// }*/
>
> That's a funny mix of C and C++ comments. Why not simply use #if 0 and
> kill all the C++ comments?
As mentioned, did not want to change it that much.
> That said, I don't understand what "TODO" means in this context. CR
> isn't going to be readable any time soon.
I also did not understand what was meant here.
> > @@ -845,10 +885,10 @@ static int __init atmel_console_setup(st
> > int parity = 'n';
> > int flow = 'n';
> >
> > - if (port->membase == 0) /* Port not initialized yet - delay setup */
> > + if (port->membase == 0) /* Port not initialized yet - delay setup */
> > return -ENODEV;
>
> Looks better if you move the comment inside the body IMO.
And would add some extra brackets etc.
I did not try to make it perfect ;-)
>
> > - UART_PUT_IDR(port, -1); /* disable interrupts */
> > + UART_PUT_IDR(port, -1); /* disable interrupts */
>
> Just kill that useless comment.
Agree
> > @@ -880,13 +920,17 @@ static struct console atmel_console = {
> > static int __init atmel_console_init(void)
> > {
> > if (atmel_default_console_device) {
> > - add_preferred_console(ATMEL_DEVICENAME, atmel_default_console_device->id, NULL);
> > - atmel_init_port(&(atmel_ports[atmel_default_console_device->id]), atmel_default_console_device);
> > + add_preferred_console(ATMEL_DEVICENAME,
> > + atmel_default_console_device->id, NULL);
> > + atmel_init_port(
> > + &(atmel_ports[atmel_default_console_device->id]),
> > + atmel_default_console_device);
>
> That looks a bit funny. If you're having trouble moving
> &(atmel_ports... onto the same line as atmel_init_port, please consider
> removing the redundant parentheses.
Guess, that wouldn't fit either?
> Moving on to the next patch...
>
> > This patch splits up the interrupt handler of the serial port
> > into a interrupt top-half and some tasklets.
> >
> > The goal is to get the interrupt top-half as short as possible to
> > minimize latencies on interrupts. But the old code also does some
> > calls in the interrupt handler that are not allowed on preempt-RT
> > in IRQF_NODELAY context. This handler is executed in this context
> > because of the interrupt sharing with the timer interrupt.
> > The timer interrupt on Preempt-RT runs in IRQF_NODELAY context.
>
> What calls are we talking about here? uart_insert_char() and
> tty_flip_buffer_push()?
Yep. All calls that block on a Mutex somehow on Preempt-RT. (such as
spinlocks, wakeup_interruptible() and many of its friends.)
> > 2 tasklets are used:
> > * one for handling the error statuses
> > * one for pushing the incoming characters into the tty-layer.
>
> Why is it necessary with two tasklets?
To prevent rewriting the code completely. 1 change was in a read
routine, the other at a different location.
> > +struct atmel_uart_char {
> > + unsigned int status;
> > + unsigned int overrun;
> > + unsigned int ch;
> > + unsigned int flg;
> > +};
>
> Hmm. 16 bytes per char is a bit excessive, isn't it? How about
>
> struct atmel_uart_char {
> u16 ch;
> u16 status;
> };
>
> where ch is the received character (up to 9 bits) and status is the
> lowest 16 bits of the status register?
I used the NODELAY patch for the 8250 serial port as reference, it
contains similar code, and I tried to make both look the same.
>
> > +#define ATMEL_SERIAL_RINGSIZE 1024
> > +
> > +struct atmel_uart_ring {
> > + unsigned int head;
> > + unsigned int tail;
> > + unsigned int count;
> > + struct atmel_uart_char data[ATMEL_SERIAL_RINGSIZE];
> > +};
>
> Why not use struct circ_buf? Why do you need "count"?
See previous remark.
> Ok, that's all for now. I'm going to take a closer look at the DMA
> patch and hopefully figure out why it isn't working on AVR32.
>
> Thanks for your efforts in cleaning this stuff up.
>
> Haavard
>
Thank you for reviewing it.
I will have a look at it in again later this week.
Have you any idea how we can integrate both patch series (yours and
mine) without interfering each other? This patchset was quite
annoying, because through multiple channels patches are submitted, and
even stacked up...
Kind Regards,
Remy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
