On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 09:17:07PM +0900, Hector Martin wrote:
> * Split out s3c24xx_serial_tx_chars from s3c24xx_serial_tx_irq,
> where only the latter acquires the port lock.
I miss here information why you do all this.
>
> * For S3C64xx, return IRQ_NONE if no flag bits were set, so the
> interrupt core can detect IRQ storms. Note that both IRQ handlers
> always return IRQ_HANDLED anyway, so 'or' logic isn't necessary here,
> if either handler ran we are always going to return IRQ_HANDLED.
It looks like separate patch. Your patches should do only one thing at
once. The fact that you have here three bullet points is a warning
sign. This is even more important if you do some refactorings and
cleanups which should not affect functionality. Hiding there changes
which could affect functionality is a no-go.
>
> * Rename s3c24xx_serial_rx_chars to s3c24xx_serial_rx_irq for
> consistency with the above. All it does now is call two other
> functions anyway.
Separate patch for trivial renaming.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
> index 21955be680a4..821cd0e4f870 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
> @@ -151,6 +151,9 @@ struct s3c24xx_uart_port {
> #endif
> };
>
> +static void s3c24xx_serial_start_next_tx(struct s3c24xx_uart_port *ourport);
> +static void s3c24xx_serial_tx_chars(struct s3c24xx_uart_port *ourport);
> +
> /* conversion functions */
>
> #define s3c24xx_dev_to_port(__dev) dev_get_drvdata(__dev)
> @@ -316,8 +319,6 @@ static void s3c24xx_serial_stop_tx(struct uart_port *port)
> ourport->tx_mode = 0;
> }
>
> -static void s3c24xx_serial_start_next_tx(struct s3c24xx_uart_port *ourport);
> -
Why moving this? Why adding s3c24xx_serial_tx_chars() forward
declaration?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
