On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:12:54AM +0000, Vabhav Sharma (OSS) wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 3:34 PM
> > To: Vabhav Sharma (OSS) <vabhav.sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: jslaby@xxxxxxxx; linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Varun Sethi <V.Sethi@xxxxxxx>; Vabhav Sharma
> > <vabhav.sharma@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: fsl_lpuart: minimum baud rate support
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 03:19:05PM +0530, Vabhav Sharma wrote:
> > > From: Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The formula for the baud rate is
> > > baud rate = "baud clock / ((OSR+1) × SBR)
> > >
> > > Algorithm used in function lpuart32_serial_setbrg() only changes the
> > > SBR. Even with maxmum value put in, OSR stays at 0x7 and the lowest
> > > baud rate would be ~ 2600 bps
> > >
> > > Update the algorithm to allow driver operation at 1200,2400 or
> > > 600 bps
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/tty/serial/fsl_lpuart.c | 4 ++++
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/fsl_lpuart.c
> > > b/drivers/tty/serial/fsl_lpuart.c index 90298c4..0fd0fa5f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/fsl_lpuart.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/fsl_lpuart.c
> > > @@ -1925,6 +1925,10 @@ static void __lpuart32_serial_setbrg(struct
> > uart_port *port,
> > > tmp_sbr++;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (tmp_sbr > UARTBAUD_SBR_MASK) {
> > > + continue;
> > > + }
> >
> > Always use scripts/checkpatch.pl on your patches so you do not get grumpy
> > emails from maintainers telling you to use scripts/checkpatch.pl on your
> > patches...
> Indeed, I run the script before sending patch
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-tty-serial-fsl_lpuart-minimum-baud-rate-support.patch
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 lines checked
>
> 0001-tty-serial-fsl_lpuart-minimum-baud-rate-support.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
Ok, then something is wrong as there is obviously a coding style issue
with your submission, as you can see with a manual review of it, right?
greg k-h
