On Thu, 1 Apr 2021, at 15:48, Zev Weiss wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:15:44PM CDT, Joel Stanley wrote: > >On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 00:57, Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> This provides a simple boolean to use instead of the deprecated > >> aspeed,sirq-polarity-sense property. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c > >> index c33e02cbde93..e5ef9f957f9a 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c > >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_vuart.c > >> @@ -482,6 +482,9 @@ static int aspeed_vuart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> of_node_put(sirq_polarity_sense_args.np); > >> } > >> > >> + if (of_property_read_bool(np, "aspeed,sirq-active-high")) > >> + aspeed_vuart_set_sirq_polarity(vuart, 1); > > > >This assumes the default is always low, so we don't need a property to > >set it to that state? > > > >Would it make more sense to have the property describe if it's high or > >low? (I'm happy for the answer to be "no", as we've gotten by for the > >past few years without it). > > > > Yeah, that sounds like better way to approach it -- I think I'll > rearrange as Andrew suggested in > https://lore.kernel.org/openbmc/d66753ee-7db2-41e5-9fe5-762b1ab678bc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > >This brings up another point. We already have the sysfs file for > >setting the lpc address, from userspace. In OpenBMC land this can be > >set with obmc-console-client (/etc/obmc-console.conf). Should we add > >support to that application for setting the irq polarity too, and do > >away with device tree descriptions? > > > > I guess I might lean slightly toward keeping the DT description so that > if for whatever reason obmc-console-server flakes out and doesn't start > you're better positioned to try banging on /dev/ttyS* manually if you're > desperate. Though I suppose that in turn might imply that I'm arguing > for adding DT properties for lpc_address and sirq too, Why not just adopt exactly what I've done with KCS, where we have aspeed,lpc-io-reg and aspeed,lpc-interrupts? Andrew
