On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:21:49AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:03:06AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> > Hello Kees, hello Greg, >> > >> > since commit >> > 7d12b97 (serial: report base_baud after initialization) >> > my efm32 machine says during startup: >> > 4000e400.uart: ttyefm4 at MMIO 0x4000e400 (irq = 25, base_baud = 0) is a efm32-uart >> > >> > Is this "= 0" expected or is there something wrong in the driver? >> >> Does the hardware work properly? That's the best test of this, right? > Yes, it works fine. Still I wonder if there is a problem that the driver > doesn't fill in port.uartclk early enough. In the efm32-uart driver (i.e. > drivers/tty/serial/efm32-uart.c) this member is only assigned to in > .startup. Hm, yeah, it looks like uart_add_one_port() (which ultimately makes the printk call) is called in efm32_uart_probe(), but uartclk gets set during serial open (via efm32_uart_startup()). So, it seems this "0" report is harmless. If the efm32 driver wants to have something meaningful there, I guess the clk code needs to move around. -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- 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
