Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230928151631.149333-1-jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> <20230928151631.149333-2-jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
 <69902af8-103-38a8-c438-87f7a047497@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <69902af8-103-38a8-c438-87f7a047497@linux.intel.com>
From:   Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:26:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMo8Bf+pXvSZGd0gkXbBd75gKb4dAJ1iNCxufxtud8yUdT5pyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] serial: core: tidy invalid baudrate handling in uart_get_baud_rate
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Ilpo_J=C3=A4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-serial <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 11:34=E2=80=AFPM Ilpo J=C3=A4rvinen
<ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> While looking into this, I found this old commit:
>
> commit 16ae2a877bf4179737921235e85ceffd7b79354f
> Author: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
> Date:   Mon Jan 4 16:26:21 2010 +0000
>
>     serial: Fix crash if the minimum rate of the device is > 9600 baud
>
>     In that situation if the old rate is invalid and the new rate is inva=
lid
>     and the chip cannot do 9600 baud we report zero, which makes all the
>     drivers explode.
>
>     Instead force the rate based on min/max
>
> But for some reason it does not work as advertized here? What is the exac=
t
> cause for that?

In my case I see that tty_termios_encode_baud_rate() is called with
ibaud =3D=3D obaud =3D=3D 9769, but it finds the closest rate 9600, which i=
s
within 2% of the actual minimum, but is outside the min/max range
supported by the hardware.

> Is something wrong with how min/max have that +1/-1 there or what?

--=20
Thanks.
-- Max