On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:19:14PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 03:26:39PM +0300, Aleksey Makarov wrote:

quoted

On 06/02/2016 09:02 PM, Aleksey Makarov wrote:

quoted

On 05/20/2016 04:03 PM, Aleksey Makarov wrote:

Hi Russell,

Can you review this patch please?

Thank you
Aleksey Makarov

quoted

quoted

This patch adds function pl011_console_match() that implements
method match of struct console.  It allows to match consoles against
data specified in a string, for example taken from command line or
compiled by ACPI SPCR table handler.

Signed-off-by: Aleksey Makarov <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <redacted>

Hi Greg, Russell,

Can you review this patch and consider ACKing it please?
It had an ACK from Greg in v7 but since then I changed it a bit.

The patch by Christopher Covington [1] specifies that SBSA uart 
does 32-bit access to registers and this breaks the match function.  
In this series the function was changed to match when SPCR specifies
both mmio32 and mmio access.  I removed Acked-by: Greg from this
patch because of these changes.

The difference between v7 and v8:

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c
index 4139b64..388edc8 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c

@@ -2328,10 +2329,10 @@ static int __init pl011_console_match(struct console *co, char *name, int idx,
 
                port = &amba_ports[i]->port;
 
-               if (port->iotype != iotype)
+               if (iotype != UPIO_MEM && iotype != UPIO_MEM32)
                        continue;
-               if ((iotype == UPIO_MEM || iotype == UPIO_MEM32) &&
-                   (port->mapbase != addr))
+
+               if (port->mapbase != addr)
                        continue;
 
                co->index = i;

I'm looking at this change, and I don't know what effect it ultimately
has.  This is kind of a problem, because I've zero knowledge of ACPI,
and so I can't say whether this change is appropriate or not.  I have
no ARM server platforms (yet), nor any access to them, so I can't even
try it out.

In short, I've no idea.  I guess it's up to those who have come up
with SBSA to decide whether this is an appropriate change or not.

Lorenzo, Sudeep, as ARM ACPI maintainers and keepers of SBSA do you have
any comment on this?

Graeme