Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reviewing, yes, I have tested the patchset on the > > > > real > > > hardware. > > > > > > > > Seems the coverity check is static scan, so cannot judge if > > > > UARTBAUD > > > Register will be zero. > > > > I just found below statement in the uart reference manual: "When > > > > SBR is 1 > > > - 8191, the baud rate equals "baud clock / ((OSR+1) × SBR)"." > > > > Since I am not familiar with uart, do you mean that the value of > > > > UARTBAUD > > > Register will never be zero, so this case will not happen in real word? > > > > > > Given that this never has happened with hardware for such an old > > > device, perhaps it is impossible. But it would be good to check. > > > > > > > If yes, I will drop this patch. > > > > > > Handling "bad data" from hardware is never a bad idea, so I don't > > > necessarily want to drop this patch, I just want to try to figure > > > out if this is a "incase the hardware is broken/malicious" type of change, > vs. > > > a "this bug we are seeing in real hardware" type of change. > > > > > > > Yes, you are right, the probability of hardware happen in this case is really > low. But we cannot guarantee that it will never happen. > > So will this check here be accepted? Thanks! > > Please resubmit it with a better changelog description summarizing the > discussion here to make it more obvious why this change is needed. > Sure, will send a V2 patch with a better commit description. Thanks! Best regards Sherry > thanks, > > greg k-h
