On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:46 PM Jay Dolan <jay.dolan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/19/21 6:33 AM, Jay Dolan wrote: > > On 11/19/21 12:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:32:51PM -0800, Jay Dolan wrote: > >>> On 11/17/21 6:57 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>>> Split Pericom driver to a separate module. > >>>> While at it, re-enable high baud rates. > >>>> > >>>> Jay, can you, please, test this on as many hardware as you have? > >>>> > >>>> The series depends on the fix-series: > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-serial/20211117145502.43645-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > >> > >>> I have my current state here: > >>> https://github.com/accesio/linux/blob/split-pericom-driver/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pericom.c > >>> > >>> > >>> * Change port type to UPIO_PORT > >>> * Add in pericom_do_startup() because the UPF_MAGIC_MULTIPLIER doesn't > >>> stick. > >> > >> Thanks, I have updated my local tree with these changes. > >> > >>> When I'm testing baud rates greater than baud_base I'm seeing strange > >>> things > >>> on the scope. > >> > >> Can you confirm that there are no issues with the first (fixes) series? > > Yes. The fixes series has no issues, and was tested up to baud_base for > > both 14 and 24 MHz crystals. > >> I have slightly changed your set_divisor() refactoring, it may be that > >> issue > >> is there. > >> > >>> Maybe I'm just tired, and it's human error. I should be able > >>> to get back to it and get it done on Saturday. > >> > >> Thank you. > > Latest code is still here > https://github.com/accesio/linux/blob/split-pericom-driver/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pericom.c > > Changes from last update: > * Avoid divide by zero when initializing delta Thanks for digging into it. But doesn't it mean that the issue is in the fix series as I assumed before? > I retested and verified on the scope that speeds are now being set > correctly. > > I have also confirmed that all of the ACCES four port cards in the > driver do have the offset fourth port. The item I raised about PCI was a > misunderstanding that was all on my end. Good to know that is not relevant. > Are there any other action items I should be handling? I think I have to issue two new iterations of each series and collect your formal Tested-by on the second one. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
