On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 20:14 +0300, Sergei Ianovich wrote:

On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 18:46 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 19:25 +0300, Sergei Ianovich wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 13:06 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 00:26 +0300, Sergei Ianovich wrote:

quoted

So, but if you support only fixed rates, why do you care about
BOTHER
at all?

If BOTHER is defined, tty_termios_baud_rate()
and tty_termios_encode_baud_rate() allow non-standard baud rates. I
should clear it from c_cflag to indicate I don't support it.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

I think you can call this unconditionally together with case >
115200.

The calls are orthogonal. This one deals with the case when
BOTHER
is
defined and set, and we have non-zero rate with BOTHER, but we
have
zero rate after BOTHER is cleared. So we set 9600 as a sane
default
speed.

Maybe you just set a baud rate nearest to the one from the table in
case of BOTHER?

In that case perhaps you have to supply +-1 to the range. That's why I
asked about uart_get_baud_rate(). 

Maybe this flow will work for you

if (BOTHER)
 clear BOTHER
 call uart_get_baud_rate()

?

The warning seems to be the result of initializing a spinlock with
zero. Spinlocks are intentionally obfuscated, but I didn't
investigate
further.

quoted

$ git grep -n 'struct .* = {0};' | wc -l
338

$ git grep -n 'struct .* = { \?0 \?};' | wc -l
550

( '… = { 0 };' included)

The first structure member is most likely not a spinlock in those
cases.

Hmm... Interesting. On one hand the poison is reasonable, on the other
we often do a memset() or {0} on structures, i.o.w. assign 0 as initial
value until spinlock_init().

Arnd, what do you think about this (and similar) case(s)?

-- 
Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref]
Intel Finland Oy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html