Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on 6/21/20 10:58 AM:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 09:58:40PM +0200, Jerry wrote:
usbserial: add cp210x support for icount to detect parity error in received data
Why is this here?
Because it seems be mandatory?
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/5.Posting.html#patch-formatting-and-changelogs
"A one-line description of what the patch does. This message should be
enough for a reader who sees it with no other context to figure out the
scope of the patch; it is the line that will show up in the “short form”
changelogs. This message is usually formatted with the relevant
subsystem name first, followed by the purpose of the patch. For example:
gpio: fix build on CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS=n"
Did I misunderstand your rule or used wrong name of subsystem? Should I
type?
USB serial: add cp210x support for icount to detect parity error in
received data
Motivation - current version of cp210x driver doesn't provide any way to detect
a parity error in received data from userspace. Some serial protocols like STM32
bootloader protect data only by even parity so application needs to detect
whether parity error happened to read again peripheral data.
I created a simple patch which adds support for icount (ioctl TIOCGICOUNT) which
sends GET_COMM_STATUS command to CP210X and according received flags increments
fields for parity error, frame error, break and overrun.
So application can detect an error condition after reading data from ttyUSB
and repeat operation. There is no impact for applications which don't
call ioctl TIOCGICOUNT.
This patch is also placed at http://yyy.jrr.cz/cp210x.patch (my first patch)
Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order
to properly describe the change.
I read it, but still not sure what exactly was wrong? Yes, I wrapped lines
of description to 80 colums and now I noticed that only 75 columns is
allowed but I doubt that it is all?
Sorry for my bad English, it is hard to guess whether you see a problem
in function of patch, patch formatting, tab/spaces, description content,
spelling, line wrapping, mail client identification, something else or
all of them?
Signed-off-by: Jaromir Skorpil <Jerry@xxxxxx>
This does not match your From: line :(
I supposed that only mail address in From line matter?
I understand that real name is mandatory only for Signed-off-by field?
thanks,
greg k-h
Jerry
