On 10/30, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 29/10/14 18:14, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > + r_count = min_t(int, count, sizeof(buf));
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < r_count; i++) {
> > + char flag = TTY_NORMAL;
> >
> > - /* TODO: handle sysrq */
> > - tty_insert_flip_string(tport, buf, min(count, 4));
> > - count -= 4;
> > + if (msm_port->break_detected && buf[i] == 0) {
> > + port->icount.brk++;
> > + flag = TTY_BREAK;
> > + msm_port->break_detected = false;
> > + if (uart_handle_break(port))
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!(port->read_status_mask & UART_SR_RX_BREAK))
> > + flag = TTY_NORMAL;
>
> flag is already known to be TTY_NORMAL.
Huh? If we detected a break we would set the flag to TTY_BREAK
and if uart_handle_break() returned 0 (perhaps sysrq config is
diasbled) then we would get down here, and then we want to reset
the flag to TTY_NORMAL if the read_status_mask bits indicate that
we want to skip checking for breaks. Otherwise we want to
indicate to the tty layer that it's a break character.
>
>
> > +
> > + spin_unlock(&port->lock);
>
> Is it safe to unlock at this point? count may no longer be valid when we
> return.
Can you explain further? If it actually isn't valid something
needs to be done. I believe other serial drivers are doing this
sort of thing though so it doesn't seem that uncommon (of course
those drivers could also be broken I suppose).
>
>
> > + sysrq = uart_handle_sysrq_char(port, buf[i]);
> > + spin_lock(&port->lock);
> > + if (!sysrq)
> > + tty_insert_flip_char(tport, buf[i], flag);
>
> flag has a constant value here.
>
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
