Re: [PATCH 3/3] tty: serial: meson: add UART driver compatible with S4 SoC on-chip

[Yu Tu <yu.tu@amlogic.com>]

On 2021/12/21 15:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
> 
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 03:16:34PM +0800, Yu Tu wrote:
>> The S4 SoC on-chip UART uses a 12M clock as the clock source for
>> calculating the baud rate of the UART. But previously, chips used 24M or
>> other clock sources. So add this change. The specific clock source is
>> determined by chip design.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yu Tu <yu.tu@amlogic.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c
>> index 69450a461c48..557c24d954a2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/meson_uart.c
>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/serial_core.h>
>>   #include <linux/tty.h>
>>   #include <linux/tty_flip.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>>   
>>   /* Register offsets */
>>   #define AML_UART_WFIFO			0x00
>> @@ -68,6 +69,8 @@
>>   #define AML_UART_BAUD_MASK		0x7fffff
>>   #define AML_UART_BAUD_USE		BIT(23)
>>   #define AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL		BIT(24)
>> +#define AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL_TICK		BIT(26)
>> +#define AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL_DIV2		BIT(27)
>>   
>>   #define AML_UART_PORT_NUM		12
>>   #define AML_UART_PORT_OFFSET		6
>> @@ -80,6 +83,11 @@ static struct uart_driver meson_uart_driver;
>>   
>>   static struct uart_port *meson_ports[AML_UART_PORT_NUM];
>>   
>> +struct meson_uart_data {
>> +	/*A clock source that calculates baud rates*/
> 
> Please use spaces in your comments.

I will correct this mistake in the next patch.

> 
>> +	unsigned int xtal_tick_en;
> 
> What is "_en" for?
> 
> "enabled"?
> 
> Spell it out please.
You're right.I will correct as you suggested.
> 
> And why an unsigned int for a boolean flag?
It is my thoughtless, I will correct.
> 
>> +};
>> +
>>   static void meson_uart_set_mctrl(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int mctrl)
>>   {
>>   }
>> @@ -294,16 +302,29 @@ static int meson_uart_startup(struct uart_port *port)
>>   
>>   static void meson_uart_change_speed(struct uart_port *port, unsigned long baud)
>>   {
>> +	struct meson_uart_data *uart_data = port->private_data;
>>   	u32 val;
>>   
>>   	while (!meson_uart_tx_empty(port))
>>   		cpu_relax();
>>   
>> +	val = readl_relaxed(port->membase + AML_UART_REG5);
>> +	val &= ~AML_UART_BAUD_MASK;
>> +
>>   	if (port->uartclk == 24000000) {
>> -		val = ((port->uartclk / 3) / baud) - 1;
>> -		val |= AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL;
>> +		if (uart_data->xtal_tick_en) {
>> +			val = (port->uartclk / 2 + baud / 2) / baud  - 1;
>> +			val |= (AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL | AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL_DIV2);
>> +		} else {
>> +			val = ((port->uartclk / 3) + baud / 2) / baud  - 1;
>> +			val &= (~(AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL_TICK |
>> +				AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL_DIV2));
>> +			val |= AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL;
>> +		}
>>   	} else {
>>   		val = ((port->uartclk * 10 / (baud * 4) + 5) / 10) - 1;
>> +		val &= (~(AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL | AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL_TICK |
>> +			AML_UART_BAUD_XTAL_DIV2));
>>   	}
>>   	val |= AML_UART_BAUD_USE;
>>   	writel(val, port->membase + AML_UART_REG5);
>> @@ -714,6 +735,7 @@ static int meson_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   {
>>   	struct resource *res_mem, *res_irq;
>>   	struct uart_port *port;
>> +	struct meson_uart_data *uart_data;
>>   	int ret = 0;
>>   	int id = -1;
>>   
>> @@ -729,6 +751,10 @@ static int meson_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   		}
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	uart_data = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>> +	if (!uart_data)
>> +		return  -EINVAL;
> 
> Wrong spacing.
> 
> Always use checkpatch.pl on your patches before sending them out.
Sorry, this is a rookie mistake.But I did check it locally before 
sending it. I will follow your advice strictly later.
> 
> And did you just break existing systems?  Do you know if all older ones
> will still work with that call?
> 
It does affect older systems, but the new and older baud rates are not 
the same. I checked the documents before I made any changes. So this 
change is compatible with the older.
>> +
>>   	if (pdev->id < 0 || pdev->id >= AML_UART_PORT_NUM)
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>   
>> @@ -770,6 +796,7 @@ static int meson_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	port->x_char = 0;
>>   	port->ops = &meson_uart_ops;
>>   	port->fifosize = 64;
>> +	port->private_data = uart_data;
>>   
>>   	meson_ports[pdev->id] = port;
>>   	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, port);
>> @@ -798,14 +825,35 @@ static int meson_uart_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>>   
>> +static const struct meson_uart_data meson_uart_data = {
>> +	.xtal_tick_en = 0,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct meson_uart_data s4_meson_uart_data = {
>> +	.xtal_tick_en = 1,
>> +};
> 
> As your whole structure just has one bit, why not just use that as the
> data value, instead of a structure?  No need to be complex here at all.
> 
It is my thoughtless, I will correct.
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>