Hi, On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 07:32:54AM +0300, Alexey Pelykh wrote: > >> >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:22:26AM +0300, Alexey Pelykh wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Felipe, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks for finding this issue. Indeed, there is a bug on 3M+ baud > >> >> >> rates. First patch is close to a complete fix, but still contains > >> >> >> div-by-zero issue. Here is my version: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c > >> >> >> index 816d1a2..808a880 100644 > >> >> >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c > >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c > >> >> >> @@ -240,8 +240,8 @@ serial_omap_baud_is_mode16(struct uart_port *port, > >> >> >> unsigned int baud) > >> >> >> { > >> >> >> unsigned int n13 = port->uartclk / (13 * baud); > >> >> >> unsigned int n16 = port->uartclk / (16 * baud); > >> >> >> - int baudAbsDiff13 = baud - (port->uartclk / (13 * n13)); > >> >> >> - int baudAbsDiff16 = baud - (port->uartclk / (16 * n16)); > >> >> >> + int baudAbsDiff13 = n13 ? (baud - (port->uartclk / (13 * n13))) : INT_MAX; > >> >> >> + int baudAbsDiff16 = n16 ? (baud - (port->uartclk / (16 * n16))) : INT_MAX; > >> >> > > >> >> > IOW: > >> >> > > >> >> > int baudAbsDiff13 = 0; > >> >> > > >> >> > if (n13) > >> >> > baudAbsDiff13 = (baud - (port->uartclk / (13 * n13))); > >> >> > >> >> Not quite same code, INT_MAX instead of 0. With 0 a div-by-zero > >> >> exception will still occur on 3686400. > >> > > >> > why, there's no division after that point, right ? Besides, > >> > serial_omap_baud_is_mode16() is supposed to return a boolean value. > >> > > >> > Setting baudAbsDiff1[36] to 0 will cause no problems, you're only using > >> > that value with a boolean expression, no divisions whatsoever. Division > >> > is done after using serial_omap_baud_is_mode16() to initialize divisor > >> > to 13 or 16 (which is a misnamer, since that's the oversampling > >> > parameter). > >> > > >> > >> Yes, variables are a bit misnamed, that should be fixed someday. > >> Regarding 0 vs INT_MAX, in case of 0 values will be > >> 300: divisor = 12307 (13) > >> 600: divisor = 6153 (13) > >> 1200: divisor = 3076 (13) > >> 2400: divisor = 1538 (13) > >> 4800: divisor = 625 (16) > >> 9600: divisor = 384 (13) > >> 14400: divisor = 256 (13) > >> 19200: divisor = 192 (13) > >> 28800: divisor = 128 (13) > >> 38400: divisor = 96 (13) > >> 57600: divisor = 64 (13) > >> 115200: divisor = 32 (13) > >> 230400: divisor = 16 (13) > >> 460800: divisor = 8 (13) > >> 921600: divisor = 4 (13) > >> 1000000: divisor = 3 (16) > >> 1843200: divisor = 2 (13) > >> 3000000: divisor = 1 (16) > >> 3686400: divisor = 0 (16) << error here, should be 1 (13), as it is with INT_MAX > > > > I get it now... your boolean check wants to use the closer baud to > > requested baud, so it's mode16 if the delta between baudAbsDiff16 and > > requested rate is less than delta between baudAbsDiff13 and requested > > baud. > > > >> >> > which is exactly what my patch did. I fail to see where division by zero > >> >> > would be coming from. > >> >> > > >> >> >> if(baudAbsDiff13 < 0) > >> >> >> baudAbsDiff13 = -baudAbsDiff13; > >> >> >> if(baudAbsDiff16 < 0) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> With 48MHz UART clock, it will give > >> >> >> 300: divisor = 12307 (13), real rate 300 (0.000000%) > >> >> >> 600: divisor = 6153 (13), real rate 600 (0.000000%) > >> >> >> 1200: divisor = 3076 (13), real rate 1200 (0.000000%) > >> >> >> 2400: divisor = 1538 (13), real rate 2400 (0.000000%) > >> >> > > >> >> > TRM has these all set with oversampling of 16. In fact only 460800, > >> >> > 921600, 1843200 and 3686400 should be using oversampling of 13. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> That's true, but TRM anyways does not contain all possible baud rates > >> >> (1M e.g.). IMO, as long as error rate is the same as in TRM, > >> >> it makes no difference what combination of (mode, divisor) to use. > >> >> > >> >> > -- > >> >> > balbi > >> >> > >> >> A complex solution may be implemented: use LUT for baud rates that TRM > >> >> defines explicitly, and use calculation if lookup failed. > >> > > >> > why would you try calculating anything if there is nothing in the table > >> > which can support it ? Whatever is in the lookup table, are the only > >> > baud rates the SoC supports, right ? > >> > > >> > >> Actually, I haven't found any statement in TRM, which would mention > >> that listed baudrates in referenced table are the only supported baud > >> rates, > >> and all others are illegal. > > > > "The UART clocks are connected to produce a baud rate of up to 3.6 Mbps. > > Table 24-122 lists the *supported* baud rates, requested divisor, and > > corresponding error versus the standard baud rate." > > > >> At least 1M which I use extensively works perfectly, and I can not > >> figure out any idea why it would not do so. > > > > it might very well work, but it's not officially *supported* by the IP. > > That's true, but I don't see any reason why driver should disallow > usage of baud rates that are not supported, but possible by hardware: > "The UART clocks are connected to produce a baud rate of up to 3.6M bits/s." fair point. > I've changed calculation a bit to give priority to mode16, and now it > gives TRM table as-is + extra baud rates > 300: divisor = 10000 (16), real rate 300 (0.000000%) > 600: divisor = 5000 (16), real rate 600 (0.000000%) > 1200: divisor = 2500 (16), real rate 1200 (0.000000%) > 2400: divisor = 1250 (16), real rate 2400 (0.000000%) > 4800: divisor = 625 (16), real rate 4800 (0.000000%) > 9600: divisor = 312 (16), real rate 9615 (0.156250%) > 14400: divisor = 208 (16), real rate 14423 (0.159722%) > 19200: divisor = 156 (16), real rate 19230 (0.156250%) > 28800: divisor = 104 (16), real rate 28846 (0.159722%) > 38400: divisor = 78 (16), real rate 38461 (0.158854%) > 57600: divisor = 52 (16), real rate 57692 (0.159722%) > 115200: divisor = 26 (16), real rate 115384 (0.159722%) > 230400: divisor = 13 (16), real rate 230769 (0.160156%) > 460800: divisor = 8 (13), real rate 461538 (0.160156%) > 921600: divisor = 4 (13), real rate 923076 (0.160156%) > 1000000: divisor = 3 (16), real rate 1000000 (0.000000%) > 1843200: divisor = 2 (13), real rate 1846153 (0.160211%) > 3000000: divisor = 1 (16), real rate 3000000 (0.000000%) > 3686400: divisor = 1 (13), real rate 3692307 (0.160238%) > > If that's acceptable behavior, I'll prepare a patch. Sure but I'd suggest splitting the patch so we can get the bugfix in mainline during this -rc. So first patch would only fix the division-by-zero bug and second patch would 'fix' baudrate calculation. Sounds good ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature