On 12/4/24 14:17, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2024, at 22:09, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024, at 12:06, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
+unsigned int nr_uarts = ARRAY_SIZE(old_serial_port);;
+
Unfortunately, this breaks on non-x86 because of the check
added in 59cfc45f17d6 ("serial: 8250: Do nothing if nr_uarts=0").
I still think it's the right idea, but need to unwind further
to make this possible, and find a different fix for the bug
from that commit.
I decided to apply the patch below to my fixes branch. It doesn't change
the code, it just gets rid of the warning backtrace.
I got stuck in this rabbit hole of running into more issues
with the 8250 driver. Any time you touch something, it breaks
elsewhere.
I've uploaded what I have here now:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git/log/?h=8250-cleanup
but this probably needs more testing, and a few smaller changes
drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
index 4d63d80e78a9..649e74e9b52f 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
@@ -467,7 +467,8 @@ static void set_io_from_upio(struct uart_port *p)
break;
#endif
default:
- WARN(1, "Unsupported UART type %x\n", p->iotype);
+ WARN(p->iotype != UPIO_PORT || p->iobase,
+ "Unsupported UART type %x\n", p->iotype);
p->serial_in = no_serial_in;
p->serial_out = no_serial_out;
}
I had considered this at first but didn't really want to do
it like this because we should not be registering empty ports
on platforms that don't use the setserial style override for
the port configuration.
It does of course address the warning, just not the
underlying bug.
I had a look myself, and concluded that a clean fix will likely require
substantial changes to avoid regressions. Your patch series pretty much
confirms that. This is why I came up with the hack below. Yes, it doesn't
get rid of the underlying problem, but IMO it is good enough for 6.13,
or at least not worse than 6.12, while at the same time avoiding the
warning backtrace. It seems to me that a clean fix would be 6.14 material,
and I really don't want those backtraces to clog up test logs until then.
Thanks,
Guenter
