On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:15:56PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> We have an interrupt for the CTS input (RTS in FSL speech). Its handler
> calls uart_handle_cts_change(), so we shouldn't do this in
> imx_uart_mctrl_check() again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/tty/serial/imx.c | 6 ------
> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
> index a5e80a028e83..0419a084c0ed 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
> @@ -805,12 +805,8 @@ static void imx_uart_clear_rx_errors(struct imx_port *sport);
> static unsigned int imx_uart_get_hwmctrl(struct imx_port *sport)
> {
> unsigned int tmp = TIOCM_DSR;
> - unsigned usr1 = imx_uart_readl(sport, USR1);
> unsigned usr2 = imx_uart_readl(sport, USR2);
>
> - if (usr1 & USR1_RTSS)
> - tmp |= TIOCM_CTS;
> -
> /* in DCE mode DCDIN is always 0 */
> if (!(usr2 & USR2_DCDIN))
> tmp |= TIOCM_CAR;
Is this hunk supposed to be included in this patch? I think it's wrong.
> @@ -843,8 +839,6 @@ static void imx_uart_mctrl_check(struct imx_port *sport)
> sport->port.icount.dsr++;
> if (changed & TIOCM_CAR)
> uart_handle_dcd_change(&sport->port, status & TIOCM_CAR);
> - if (changed & TIOCM_CTS)
> - uart_handle_cts_change(&sport->port, status & TIOCM_CTS);
This doesn't hurt, does it? Also imx_uart_mctrl_check is called from
imx_uart_timeout which is supposed to catch missed interrupts and in
this case uart_handle_cts_change() must be called.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
