On 25.06.22 at 12:14, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>
>> From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> In uart_set_rs485_config() the serial core already assigns the passed
>> serial_rs485 struct to the uart port.
>>
>> So remove the assignment in the drivers rs485_config() function to avoid
>> redundancy.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c
>> index ab2c5b2a1ce8..857e010d01dc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/ar933x_uart.c
>> @@ -591,7 +591,6 @@ static int ar933x_config_rs485(struct uart_port *port,
>> dev_err(port->dev, "RS485 needs rts-gpio\n");
>> return 1;
>> }
>> - port->rs485 = *rs485conf;
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> Hmm, I realize that for some reason I missed cleaning up this particular
> driver after introducing the serial_rs485 sanitization. It shouldn't need
> that preceeding if block either because ar933x_no_rs485 gets applied if
> there's no rts_gpiod so the core clears SER_RS485_ENABLED.
>
I think we still need that "if" in case that RS485 was not enabled at driver
startup (no rs485-enabled-at-boot-time) and no RTS GPIO was defined but then
RS485 is enabled via TIOCSRS485.
Maybe in ar933x_uart_probe()
if ((port->rs485.flags & SER_RS485_ENABLED) &&
!up->rts_gpiod) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "lacking rts-gpio, disabling RS485\n");
port->rs485.flags &= ~SER_RS485_ENABLED;
port->rs485_supported = &ar933x_no_rs485;
}
should rather be
if (!up->rts_gpiod) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "lacking rts-gpio, disabling RS485\n");
port->rs485.flags &= ~SER_RS485_ENABLED;
port->rs485_supported = &ar933x_no_rs485;
}
Regards,
Lino
