Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-148838-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:41:07 -0300
From: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
To: Michael Pratt <mcpratt@pm.me>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>, 
	Ilpo =?utf-8?B?SsOkcnZpbmVu?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>, Vamshi Gajjela <vamshigajjela@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] serial: core: Store fifo timeout again
Message-ID: <2ofvmwtigayox5ilt62lececgol3jqqfisfhiz3bewugf4wime@fbz45h7ovyoa>
References: <20240416182741.22514-1-mcpratt@pm.me>
 <20240416182741.22514-2-mcpratt@pm.me>
 <Zh7KV0FuM2B56J7w@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <zTaajAZtS59Hv5offvbHJV1ptivBxD4WaZP_M-zQkicUtDb4mokpuKCFGIzUVL3p2yDSqHx9Uf2vIYVlbGeHN8xMJ6H3VWxwH3MPe1cH5a4=@pm.me>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <zTaajAZtS59Hv5offvbHJV1ptivBxD4WaZP_M-zQkicUtDb4mokpuKCFGIzUVL3p2yDSqHx9Uf2vIYVlbGeHN8xMJ6H3VWxwH3MPe1cH5a4=@pm.me>

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 07:20:18PM +0000, Michael Pratt wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> 
> On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 14:58, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > ...
> > 
> > > + if (port->fifosize > 1)
> > > + port->timeout = uart_fifo_timeout(port);
> > 
> > 
> > else
> > port->timeout = port->frame_time;
> > 
> 
> 
> Consistent with what I said in the other reply, the only reason that
> I have an if statement here, is to avoid doing extra math for devices
> without a fifo, as a specifically calculated timeout value would be useless
> in those cases.
> 

As we are talking about a device with a scale of KB/s, I am attempted to
suggest to call uart_fifo_timeout() unconditionally.

> However, if you don't like the 10 ms default timeout, perhaps port->frame_time
> could actually be a more reasonable default value? That is, provided that we have a process
> for calculating the proper value already in place...
> 
> > 
> > --
> > With Best Regards,
> > Andy Shevchenko
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for taking a look :D
> 
> --
> MCP
>