On 8/14/23 8:12 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 09:24:21PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote:On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 3:50 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 03:14:01PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote:+ [PORT_BCM7271] = { + .name = "bcm7271_uart",This is badly named port type.
Would "Brcmstb 7271 UART" suffice?
+ .fifo_size = 32, + .tx_loadsz = 32, + .fcr = UART_FCR_ENABLE_FIFO | UART_FCR_R_TRIG_01, + .rxtrig_bytes = {1, 8, 16, 30}, + .flags = UART_CAP_FIFO | UART_CAP_AFE + }, };This is almost a dup of PORT_ALTR_16550_F32. Use it if you wish. You can always rename it if it feels the right thing to do.
There is some other PORT_ALTR logic that I would like to avoid. I would also like to avoid future changes to PORT_ALTR that wouldn't be applicable to us.
But why 8 and not 16 is the default rxtrig?
We were seeing some latency issues on our chips where 16 would cause overflows. Trying to kill 2 birds with one stone. If creating another port type is avoidable then alternatively I can change the default in userspace.
Thanks, Justin
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
