On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 07:09:52PM +0000, Michael Pratt wrote: > On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 14:55, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > @@ -3392,6 +3392,8 @@ void serial8250_console_write(struct uart_8250_port *up, const char *s, > > > > > + up->fifo_enable = use_fifo; > > > > This seems incorrect / not the only one place to assign this. What if the > > console not enabled at compile time? What if it's not enabled at boot time? > > This is 8250 specific, and currently, it's the only place there > where it's decided whether or not to use the fifo device > by checking a bunch of flags and values. Exactly, as initial commit is related to the kernel console _only_. While your code, IIUC (correct me, if I'm wrong) is for any use of the port. > If you're suggesting that these checks are moved out of this function somewhere else, > I would probably agree with that, but let's save that idea for the future... Not really (again, IIUC above), as console can be not enabled, and hence serial8250_console_write() never been called and you will have false impression that there is no FIFO in use. > If you're suggesting that there could be a null pointer, I don't think that's possible > in this function... (the name of the pointer being "up" might be confusing?) > > Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you mean. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
