Expected behavior of set_termios() w.r.t. TX FIFO?
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:28:39 +0100
- From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Expected behavior of set_termios() w.r.t. TX FIFO?
Hi Greg, Jiri, Peter,
I'm wondering what is the expected behavior of calling
uart_ops.set_termios() w.r.t. characters that are already queued in the
UART's TX FIFO.
- Should it wait (block) until all queued characters have been
transmitted, before changing the UART's settings?
- Should it apply the new settings immediately, affecting the already
- Should it apply the new settings, dropping the already queued
- Is calling uart_ops.set_termios() while the TX FIFO isn't empty
allowed (this can be triggered easily from userspace)?
uart_ops.set_termios() returns void, so there's no way to return an error.
Currently the sh-sci driver blocks until the TX FIFO has been emptied,
which may never happen if hardware flow control is enabled, and the remote
side never asserts CTS, leading to:
NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s!
See also "[PATCH 2/2] serial: sh-sci: Fix hang in sci_reset()",
Thanks for your answer!
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds