Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:19:52 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Hyunki Koo <hyunki00.koo@samsung.com>, hyunki00.koo@gmail.com,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: samsung_tty: 32-bit access for TX/RX hold registers
Message-ID: <20200401091952.GA14425@kozik-lap>
References: <CGME20200401082749epcas2p2a774da515805bc3f761b6b5a8dc9e3d2@epcas2p2.samsung.com>
 <20200401082721.19431-1-hyunki00.koo@samsung.com>
 <20200401085548.GC2026666@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200401085548.GC2026666@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:55:48AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 05:27:20PM +0900, Hyunki Koo wrote:
> > -	if (np)
> > +	if (np) {
> >  		of_property_read_u32(np,
> >  			"samsung,uart-fifosize", &ourport->port.fifosize);
> >  
> > +		if (of_property_read_u32(np, "reg-io-width", &prop) == 0) {
> > +			switch (prop) {
> > +			case 1:
> > +				ourport->port.iotype = UPIO_MEM;
> > +				break;
> > +			case 4:
> > +				ourport->port.iotype = UPIO_MEM32;
> > +				break;
> > +			default:
> > +				dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "unsupported reg-io-width (%d)\n",
> > +						prop);
> > +				ret = -EINVAL;
> > +				break;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> Does this mean that reg-io-width is now a required property for all
> samsung uarts?  Does this break older dts files?  Or should you
> fall-back to the previous operation if the attribute is not there?

Yes, it looks like silently breaking all boards.  Since
of_property_read_u32() will return errno, the warning message won't be
printed and all register reads will fail (return 0).

This looks like not tested on real HW.

Best regards,
Krzysztof