On Thu, 2024-02-22 at 00:58 +0200, andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:16:46PM +0000, Matthew Howell kirjoitti: > > Allows the use of the EN485 hardware pin by preserving the value of > > FCTR[5] in pci_xr17v35x_setup(). > > > > Per the XR17V35X datasheet, the EN485 hardware pin works by setting > > FCTR[5] when the pin is active. pci_xr17v35x_setup() prevented the use > > of EN485 because it overwrote the FCTR register. > > First of all, please avoid In-Reply-to: for the new versions of the change, > i.o.w. new version — new email thread. > Apologies, I didn't mean to do so. I had created the response from a "reply-all" in my email client and thought manually removing the in- reply-to would be sufficient to create a new email instead, but it seems the email client tried to be "smart" and kept the in-reply-to anyway. > Second, the above commit message sounds like a fix. Does it deserve Fixes tag? > Yes, I believe so. I had considered adding that and don't recall why I decided to leave it off. > ... > > > unsigned int baud = 7812500; > > u8 __iomem *p; > > int ret; > > + u8 en485mask; > > Please, preserve reversed xmas tree order. > > unsigned int baud = 7812500; > u8 __iomem *p; > u8 en485mask; > int ret; > I will resubmit with these suggestions in mind. P.S: Sorry for the late response, for some reason this didn't make it to my mailbox and I was only just made aware of your response.
