lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectdw8250_set_termios() questions
Heikki, I have not been a subscriber of the linux-serial
mailing list and didn't see this patch go by:
serial: 8250_dw: clock rate handling for all ACPI platforms
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-serial/msg12861.html

I had been working on doing something very similar for some
Broadcom device tree based devices and it might have been
helpful for me to have seen it. What I ended up with was
*very* similar to what you did. Here is the last version
of the patch I posted:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/1/323

There *are* some differences, and I'd like to inquire about
them before I simply use the code you have for my purpose.

These first two relate to whether I can use your
code as-is:
- Why do you skip setting the clock if a null "old"
pointer is supplied?
- I don't believe it's necessary to surround the clock
rate change with clk_disable_unprepare() and
clk_prepare_enable(). Do you believe otherwise?

This one is addressed to how your code is used now:
- Alan Cox had this question about my patch, and
it seems to apply to your code as well:
"This assumes an arbitarily configurable clock,
which is not I think the usual case."
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/28/91
His point is that the clock, if adjustable, may
not support a rate that produces an acceptable
signal rate. Put another way, there may be a
better frequency than what the clock framework
selects that (in combination with the UART
divisor latch registers) produces the best--or
even a good--signal. Is there any chance any
ACPI platforms will suffer this problem?

Thanks.

-Alex


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-11 15:41    [W:0.219 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site