Hi Andy, On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 15:18, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. Ah ok, I understand now... So there are cases where the function with the checks will never be called, yet the device itself will be configured the same way and the struct member I am adding will still be instantiated with value of 0 and never be set elsewhere... and because it is declared in a major struct "uart_8250_port", it appears to apply to a larger scope compared to the way it is actually being used... (or at the very least, the name "fifo_enable" would be misleading). Thanks for pointing that out, I'll take a deeper dive into the file... > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko -- MCP
