On Tue, 2024-10-08 at 10:16 +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-10-07 at 22:09 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci.c
> > > index 6709b6a5f3011db38acc58dc7223158fe4fcf72e..6a638feb44e443a1998980dd037748f227ec1bc8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci.c
> > [...]
> > > iobase = pci_resource_start(dev, 0);
> > > outb(0x0, iobase + CH384_XINT_ENABLE_REG);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -
> > > static int
> > > pci_sunix_setup(struct serial_private *priv,
> > > const struct pciserial_board *board,
> >
> > Gratuitous change here.
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pcilib.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pcilib.c
> > > index ea906d721b2c3eac15c9e8d62cc6fa56c3ef6150..fc1882d7515b5814ff1240ffdbe1009ab908ad6b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pcilib.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pcilib.c
> > > @@ -28,6 +28,10 @@ int serial8250_pci_setup_port(struct pci_dev *dev, struct uart_8250_port *port,
> > > port->port.membase = pcim_iomap_table(dev)[bar] + offset;
> > > port->port.regshift = regshift;
> > > } else {
> > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT)) {
> > > + pr_err("Serial port %lx requires I/O port support\n", port->port.iobase);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > port->port.iotype = UPIO_PORT;
> > > port->port.iobase = pci_resource_start(dev, bar) + offset;
> > > port->port.mapbase = 0;
> >
> > Can we please flatten this conditional and get rid of the negation, and
> > also use `pci_err' for clear identification (`port->port.iobase' may not
> > even have been set to anything meaningful if this triggers)? I.e.:
> >
> > /* ... */
> > } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT)) {
> > /* ... */
> > } else {
> > pci_err(dev, "serial port requires I/O port support\n");
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > I'd also say "port I/O" (by analogy to "memory-mapped I/O") rather than
> > "I/O port", but I can imagine it might be debatable.
>
> Agree this looks better, will change it.
While changing this I noticed that this isn't aligned with the other
print. There we use dev_warn() and -ENXIO vs -EINVAL. How about we move
serial_8250_need_ioport() to 8250_pcilib.c and use it here too? Then we
also only have a single place for the message.
Thanks,
Niklas