lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/5] tty: Introduce SER_RS485_SOFTWARE read-only flag for struct serial_rs485
From
Date
On 11/12/2015 02:57 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:33:53 +0300
> "Matwey V. Kornilov" <matwey@sai.msu.ru> wrote:
>
>> This flag is supposed to be used by uart drivers using software rs485 direction control.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matwey V. Kornilov <matwey@sai.msu.ru>
>> ---
>> include/uapi/linux/serial.h | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/serial.h b/include/uapi/linux/serial.h
>> index 25331f9..95b15ca 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/serial.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/serial.h
>> @@ -121,6 +121,9 @@ struct serial_rs485 {
>> #define SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND (1 << 2) /* Logical level for
>> RTS pin after sent*/
>> #define SER_RS485_RX_DURING_TX (1 << 4)
>> +#define SER_RS485_SOFTWARE (1 << 5) /* Software
>> + implementation is
>> + being used */
>
> I've only got one question here - why do we need this flag. Why does the
> application care whether the timer is in the kernel or in the chip. In
> particular think about cases where some combinations of features require
> software fallback and others don't. What would the flag indicate then.
>
> The patches look nice but I'd strongly favour not having a software flag.
> It should never matter as the kernel API is the same in all cases and we
> should therefore discourage application code from trying to know things
> it doesn't need to worry about.

I specifically asked for it.

I can think of 2 reasons that userspace wants to know:
1. Because the characteristics of the software emulation are unacceptable so
the application wants to terminate w/error rather than continue.
2. Because userspace will use different values for h/w vs. s/w. For example,
right now, the emulation will raise/lower RTS prematurely when tx ends if
the rts-after-send timer is 0.

I agree that combination features might be problematic.
An illustrative (kernel-space) example is the mess that is dmaengine_pause().
Some DMA implementations provide the means to stop and restart DMA without
losing data and some DMA implementations do not. Unfortunately, some
advertise they support dmaengine_pause() but only for lossy uses like audio.
Because the api hides this, the query interface for pause support is
useless.

Regards,
Peter Hurley


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-12 21:41    [W:0.904 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site