From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932242AbbBLIpr (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:45:47 -0500 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:55241 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932152AbbBLIpq (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:45:46 -0500 Message-ID: <54DC6832.3070507@linutronix.de> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:45:38 +0100 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Hurley , Tony Lindgren CC: Nicolas Schichan , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, balbi@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] tty: serial: 8250_core: read only RX if there is something in the FIFO References: <1410377411-26656-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1410377411-26656-4-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <54D8B772.1010405@freebox.fr> <54D9441B.7070403@hurleysoftware.com> <54D9F3C7.5000809@freebox.fr> <54DA43F8.9090904@hurleysoftware.com> <54DBB531.2030504@hurleysoftware.com> <20150211200313.GE2531@atomide.com> <54DBBE9E.90104@hurleysoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <54DBBE9E.90104@hurleysoftware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/11/2015 09:42 PM, Peter Hurley wrote: >> Reverting makes sense to me if it has caused a regression. Maybe Sebastian >> can update his patch to do this based on some quirk flag instead? > > That's fine with me. There's a 'bugs' field in struct 8250_uart_port and > UART_BUG_* defines in 8250/8250.h for that purpose. Makes sense. Reading an empty FIFO does not look right. Maybe we should do the bug flag the other way around? But I can do what I am told to so if there is more fallout than just this Marvell UART I could come around with a patch to the bug field for the older OMAP. > Regards, > Peter Hurley Sebastian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bigeasy@linutronix.de (Sebastian Andrzej Siewior) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:45:38 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 03/16] tty: serial: 8250_core: read only RX if there is something in the FIFO In-Reply-To: <54DBBE9E.90104@hurleysoftware.com> References: <1410377411-26656-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1410377411-26656-4-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <54D8B772.1010405@freebox.fr> <54D9441B.7070403@hurleysoftware.com> <54D9F3C7.5000809@freebox.fr> <54DA43F8.9090904@hurleysoftware.com> <54DBB531.2030504@hurleysoftware.com> <20150211200313.GE2531@atomide.com> <54DBBE9E.90104@hurleysoftware.com> Message-ID: <54DC6832.3070507@linutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/11/2015 09:42 PM, Peter Hurley wrote: >> Reverting makes sense to me if it has caused a regression. Maybe Sebastian >> can update his patch to do this based on some quirk flag instead? > > That's fine with me. There's a 'bugs' field in struct 8250_uart_port and > UART_BUG_* defines in 8250/8250.h for that purpose. Makes sense. Reading an empty FIFO does not look right. Maybe we should do the bug flag the other way around? But I can do what I am told to so if there is more fallout than just this Marvell UART I could come around with a patch to the bug field for the older OMAP. > Regards, > Peter Hurley Sebastian