On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 00:38, Robin Getz wrote:
> On Sun 5 Jul 2009 14:17, Alan Cox pondered:
>> > If Jason's patch is necessary () - should this be fixed up for
>> > standard UARTs too?
>>
>> I think so yes, although I'd not realised it wasn't protected currently
>> ?
>
> Hmm - try as I may - I can't get this to fail - so it must be protected
> somewhere....
>
> Ahh---
>
> It is in include/linux/serial_core.h:uart_handle_break() - never checked the
> header for the magic before I bugged you... sorry about that...
>
>> > The above patch would sync the (seemlying duplicated) code between
>> > drivers/usb/serial/generic.c and include/linux/serial_core.h
>>
>> There is a lot of near duplicate code like this. That is one reason for
>> adding struct tty_port. In theory both could be collapsed into
>>
>> int tty_port_handle_sysrq(struct tty_port *port, unsigned int ch)
>> {
>> }
>>
>> at this point as both USB and serial layer UARTs now have a port object.
>> That would just need port->sysrq collapsing into the tty_port.
>> port->console sort of already is.
>
> It appears that the usb serial doesn't handle breaks like serial_core does. (I
> don't see any support for SAK in usb_serial either?)
>
> Maybe _that_ is the real problem that Jason is trying to work around???
perhaps, but what Jason proposed originally sounds pretty sane. if i
enable sysrq support on my desktop, i dont want some development board
being able to send a sysrq request back over my serial port and
rebooting my desktop.
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
