Hi Jon,
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Jon Masters <jcm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Duc, Aleksey, all,
>
> I have a question about this...
>
> On 12/05/2016 01:51 PM, Duc Dang wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Aleksey Makarov
>> <aleksey.makarov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Check the 'Register Bit Width' field of the ACPI Generic Address
>>> Structure that specifies the address of the UART registers to
>>> decide if the driver should use "mmio32" access instead of "mmio".
>>>
>>> If the driver is other than 16550 the access with is defined
>>> by the Interface Type field of the SPCR table.
>
> I have two questions about this:
>
> 1). Why is this not a full 16550 (ACPI_DBG2_16550_COMPATIBLE)?
>
> 2). Why is it a ACPI_DBG2_16550_SUBSET you are assuming here?
The patch is actually applied for both ACPI_DBG2_16550_COMPATIBLE and
ACPI_DBG2_16500_SUBSET. Or I misunderstood your question? The end
result after applying the patch on linux-next is like this:
switch (table->interface_type) {
case ACPI_DBG2_ARM_SBSA_32BIT:
iotype = "mmio32";
/* fall through */
case ACPI_DBG2_ARM_PL011:
case ACPI_DBG2_ARM_SBSA_GENERIC:
case ACPI_DBG2_BCM2835:
uart = "pl011";
break;
case ACPI_DBG2_16550_COMPATIBLE:
case ACPI_DBG2_16550_SUBSET:
if (table->serial_port.space_id ==
ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY &&
table->serial_port.bit_width == 32)
iotype = "mmio32";
uart = "uart";
break;
default:
err = -ENOENT;
goto done;
}
>
> The SPCR and DBG2 spec clearly state that the _SUBSET is intended
> to represent a UART compatible with the earlier DGBP specification,
> not that a UART is a "subset" of a full 16550 (which seems to be
> the assumption in this patch). It's important we get this right.
>
> I built a test kernel with this patch and updated ACPI tables earlier,
> but it didn't boot with a console because I had left it a subtype 0,
> but just changed the width to 32 bit, which is what I expected.
On Mustang 3.06.25 firmware, DBG2 table has 'Port Type = 0x8000',
'Port subtype = 0x0001'
But I am still curious why setting subtype to '0' does not work on
your board. Are you using Mustang or m400?
>
> Further, I've heard back from Microsoft and they're looking at
> adding a specific subtype for this. If they do, I'm inclined to
> address existing designs with your patch (but I would favor this
> check because against the full 16550) and then switch newer APM
> based designs to the new subtype.
Yes, we will look out for the new subtype information.
>
> Jon.
>
> --
> Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop
>
Regards,
Duc Dang.
--
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
