This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: more robust serial port driver

To: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: more robust serial port driver
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:15:42 +0100
Delivery-date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:16:37 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200907281607.06109.Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcoPjN77Aess9kIXTaeNzDsCAt9sUQAAQTO/
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: more robust serial port driver
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 28/07/2009 15:07, "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Attached patch adds a check if the fifo is usable before we
> actually use it.

I count that at least the first two chunks and the initialisation of
tx_fifo_size are unnecessary. Might this be the case for the udelay(100) as
well? And what kinds of systems have these broken UARTs that half-advertise
a broken/non-existent FIFO?

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list