On 09/06/2012 08:39 PM, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jiri Slaby [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 09/06/2012 03:17 AM, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:

quoted

@@ -2362,8 +2392,8 @@ int uart_add_one_port(struct uart_driver *drv, struct uart_port *uport)
       * Register the port whether it's detected or not.  This allows
       * setserial to be used to alter this ports parameters.
       */
-     tty_dev = tty_port_register_device(port, drv->tty_driver, uport->line,
-                     uport->dev);
+     tty_dev = tty_register_device_attr(drv->tty_driver, uport->line,
+                     uport->dev, port, tty_dev_attr_groups);

This makes me believe you have not tested the change at all?

Thanks! I can't believe I missed that. (And I actually tested that,
but I have to admit that it was not enough apparently.)

I will re-send the patch (after some additional testing and double-checking).

Ok. A couple more questions...

* why are you passing tty_port to the struct device's private data and
not uart_port proper? Is this for some future use?
* cannot be all those attribute structs const?
* kdoc for tty_register_device_attr says that when
TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV is not set, tty_register_device_attr *should* not
be called. But it must not be called, otherwise it will fail and emit a
warning as a bonus, right?
* final remark. I would prefer declaration and code be delimited by a
new line in uart_get_attr_uartclk:
<===>
+       int ret;
+
+       struct tty_port *port = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+       struct uart_state *state = container_of(port, struct uart_state,
port);
+       mutex_lock(&state->port.mutex);
<===>

Like:
<===>
  struct tty_port *port = ...;
  struct uart_state *state = ...;
  int ret;

  mutex_lock(&state->port.mutex);
<===>

regards,
-- 
js
suse labs