Hello! On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/06/2012 08:39 PM, Tomas Hlavacek wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 09/06/2012 03:17 AM, Tomas Hlavacek wrote: >>>> @@ -2362,8 +2392,8 @@ int uart_add_one_port(struct uart_driver *drv, struct uart_port *uport) >>>> * Register the port whether it's detected or not. This allows >>>> * setserial to be used to alter this ports parameters. >>>> */ >>>> - tty_dev = tty_port_register_device(port, drv->tty_driver, uport->line, >>>> - uport->dev); >>>> + tty_dev = tty_register_device_attr(drv->tty_driver, uport->line, >>>> + uport->dev, port, tty_dev_attr_groups); >>> >>> This makes me believe you have not tested the change at all? >> >> Thanks! I can't believe I missed that. (And I actually tested that, >> but I have to admit that it was not enough apparently.) >> >> I will re-send the patch (after some additional testing and double-checking). > > Ok. A couple more questions... > > * why are you passing tty_port to the struct device's private data and > not uart_port proper? Is this for some future use? I actually used the uart_port structure in older RFC versions of the patch. Alan Cox advised to use struct tty_port because of consistency. More precisely he said (in an e-mail from Aug 12): I'd rather however it pointed to the tty_port that each tty device has (or very soon will be required to have). You can still find the uart_foo structs from that but it means we can do the dev_set_drvdata() in a consistent manner for all tty devices in the kernel. That in turn means we can make some of the sysfs valid the same way. > * cannot be all those attribute structs const? It seems that making static const struct attribute *tty_dev_attrs[] = ... produces warning: drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:2334:2: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default] drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:2334:2: warning: (near initialization for ‘tty_dev_attr_group.attrs’) [enabled by default] But others can. I am going to make them const in following patch. > * kdoc for tty_register_device_attr says that when > TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV is not set, tty_register_device_attr *should* not > be called. But it must not be called, otherwise it will fail and emit a > warning as a bonus, right? Yes. In fact it does the same thing as tty_register_device() did before itself. The _attr version is only slightly refactored and the doc regarding the TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV test is the same as in old non-_attr version. I am not sure that I am the right person to change the doc because I am not an author of this part of doc nor of the test in the function. > * final remark. I would prefer declaration and code be delimited by a > new line in uart_get_attr_uartclk: > <===> > + int ret; > + > + struct tty_port *port = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > + struct uart_state *state = container_of(port, struct uart_state, > port); > + mutex_lock(&state->port.mutex); > <===> > > Like: > <===> > struct tty_port *port = ...; > struct uart_state *state = ...; > int ret; > > mutex_lock(&state->port.mutex); > <===> Yes, it looks better. I am going to it accordingly. Tomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
