Hi Ilpo,
On 13.10.23 12:24, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>> On 12.10.23 15:10, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Among other things uart_sanitize_serial_rs485() tests the sanity of the RTS
>>>> settings in a RS485 configuration that has been passed by userspace.
>>>> If RTS-on-send and RTS-after-send are both set or unset the configuration
>>>> is adjusted and RTS-after-send is disabled and RTS-on-send enabled.
>>>>
>>>> This however makes only sense if both RTS modes are actually supported by
>>>> the driver.
>>>>
>>>> With commit be2e2cb1d281 ("serial: Sanitize rs485_struct") the code does
>>>> take the driver support into account but only checks if one of both RTS
>>>> modes are supported. This may lead to the errorneous result of RTS-on-send
>>>> being set even if only RTS-after-send is supported.
>>>>
>>>> Fix this by changing the implemented logic: First clear all unsupported
>>>> flags in the RS485 configuration, then adjust an invalid RTS setting by
>>>> taking into account which RTS mode is supported.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Fixes: be2e2cb1d281 ("serial: Sanitize rs485_struct")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
>>>> index 697c36dc7ec8..f4feebf8200f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
>>>> @@ -1370,19 +1370,27 @@ static void uart_sanitize_serial_rs485(struct uart_port *port, struct serial_rs4
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + rs485->flags &= supported_flags;
>>>> +
>>>> /* Pick sane settings if the user hasn't */
>>>> - if ((supported_flags & (SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND|SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND)) &&
>>>> - !(rs485->flags & SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND) ==
>>>> + if (!(rs485->flags & SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND) ==
>>>> !(rs485->flags & SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND)) {
>>>> - dev_warn_ratelimited(port->dev,
>>>> - "%s (%d): invalid RTS setting, using RTS_ON_SEND instead\n",
>>>> - port->name, port->line);
>>>> - rs485->flags |= SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND;
>>>> - rs485->flags &= ~SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND;
>>>> - supported_flags |= SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND|SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND;
>>>> - }
>>>> + if (supported_flags & SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND) {
>>>> + rs485->flags |= SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND;
>>>> + rs485->flags &= ~SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND;
>>>>
>>>> - rs485->flags &= supported_flags;
>>>> + dev_warn_ratelimited(port->dev,
>>>> + "%s (%d): invalid RTS setting, using RTS_ON_SEND instead\n",
>>>> + port->name, port->line);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + rs485->flags |= SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND;
>>>> + rs485->flags &= ~SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND;
>>>
>>> So if neither of the flags is supported, what will happen? You might want
>>> add if after that else?
>>>
>>
>> I would consider this a bug in the driver, as at least one of both modes
>> has to be supported. If the driver does not have at least one of both flags
>> set in rs485_supported.flags we could print a warning though. Would you prefer that?
>
> 8250_exar.c needs to fixed then?
I was taking these as things one can
> "configure" even if when there's support only for a one of them there's
> not that much to configure. As there was neither in 8250_exar's code, I
> didn't add either flag.
> But I suppose your interpretation of those flag makes more sense.
>
IMHO this is consistent with what we have in uart_get_rs485_mode(). This function
ensures that we have at least one RTS mode set (with default to RTS_ON_SEND). So
concerning 8250_exar.c, I think it should be fixed (havent noticed the missing
RTS mode though until you mentioned it). Would you like to provide a fix for this
or shall I include one into the next version of this series?
BR,
Lino
