Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] USB: ch341: add support for parity, frame length, stop bits

From: Grigori Goronzy
Date: Mon Apr 11 2016 - 14:25:29 EST


On 2016-04-11 19:25, Karl Palsson wrote:
Sorry if you get this twice, I was having some client problems,
but wanted to make sure you got this one...


Grigori Goronzy <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With the new reinitialization method, configuring parity,
different frame lengths and different stop bit settings work as
expected on both CH340G and CH341A. This has been extensively
tested with a logic analyzer.

v2: only set mark/space when parity is enabled,
simplifications, patch termios HW flags.

Tested-by: Ryan Barber <rfb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Grigori Goronzy <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/usb/serial/ch341.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/ch341.c
b/drivers/usb/serial/ch341.c index 6181616..99b4621 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/serial/ch341.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/serial/ch341.c
@@ -341,7 +341,6 @@ static void ch341_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty,
struct usb_serial_port *port, struct ktermios *old_termios)
{
struct ch341_private *priv = usb_get_serial_port_data(port);
- unsigned baud_rate;
unsigned long flags;
unsigned char ctrl;
int r;
@@ -350,13 +349,39 @@ static void ch341_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty,
if (old_termios && !tty_termios_hw_change(&tty->termios, old_termios))
return;

- baud_rate = tty_get_baud_rate(tty);
+ priv->baud_rate = tty_get_baud_rate(tty);

- priv->baud_rate = baud_rate;
+ ctrl = CH341_LCR_ENABLE_RX | CH341_LCR_ENABLE_TX;

- ctrl = CH341_LCR_ENABLE_RX | CH341_LCR_ENABLE_TX | CH341_LCR_CS8;
+ switch (C_CSIZE(tty)) {
+ case CS5:
+ ctrl |= CH341_LCR_CS5;
+ break;
+ case CS6:
+ ctrl |= CH341_LCR_CS6;
+ break;
+ case CS7:
+ ctrl |= CH341_LCR_CS7;
+ break;
+ default:
+ tty->termios.c_cflag |= CS8;
+ case CS8:
+ ctrl |= CH341_LCR_CS8;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ if (C_PARENB(tty)) {
+ ctrl |= CH341_LCR_ENABLE_PAR;
+ if (C_PARODD(tty))
+ ctrl |= CH341_LCR_PAR_EVEN;

Are you sure this does the right thing now? this is, as best as I
can tell, the inverse of what you had earlier, and doesn't read
right, if this is working, then I suggest renaming _LCR_PAR_EVEN
to LCR_PAR_ODD?


No, this is absolutely wrong, of course. I only did some sporadic testing because my refactoring wasn't supposed to change functionality. Thanks for pointing it out!

Grigori