On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 04:39:49PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > 
> > This reverts UART_CAP_NOTEMT commit and driver changes depending
> > on it:
> >   f6f586102ad1 (serial: 8250: Handle UART without interrupt on TEMT
> >                 using em485)
> >   296385fe1275 (serial: 8250: Add UART_CAP_NOTEMT on PORT_16550A_FSL64)
> >   bec1f1b66a6a (serial: 8250: add compatible for fsl,16550-FIFO64)
> > 
> > The UART_CAP_NOTEMT code added in f6f586102add1 (serial: 8250:
> > Handle UART without interrupt on TEMT using em485) containts math
> > overflow for 32-bit archs. In addition, the approach used in it
> > is unnecessarily complicated requiring a dedicated timer just for
> > notemt. A simpler approach for providing UART_CAP_NOTEMT already
> > exists (patches 1-2):
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-serial/20220411083321.9131-3-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com/T/#u
> > Thus, simply revert the UART_CAP_NOTEMT changes for now.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Oh I wasn't aware that Greg picked that up. OK for me to revert.
> 
> I wonder however if it's nice to revert three patches in one commit. I
> would have just reverted f6f586102ad1 and kept the define
> UART_CAP_NOTEMT such that the other two patches are noops until your
> fixed series comes in. Just my 0.02¤.

I was thinking along the same lines but was a little worried Greg would
be against such a solution. ...I'll send v2 with only that single commit
reverted.

-- 
 i.