Re: [PATCH v1 tty-next 1/2] 8250: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add driver for the quad-uart function in the multi-function endpoint of pci1xxxx device.

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 9:01 PM Kumaravel Thiagarajan
<kumaravel.thiagarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> pci1xxxx is a PCIe switch with a multi-function endpoint on one of its
> downstream ports. Quad-uart is one of the functions in the
> multi-function endpoint. This driver loads for the quad-uart and
> enumerates single or multiple instances of uart based on the PCIe
> subsystem device ID.

Thanks for the contribution!
Brief looking into the code I can see that you may easily reduce it by ~20%.
Think about it. You may take other examples, that are servicing PCI based
devices (8250_exar, 8250_lpss, 8250_mid) on how to shrink the code base.

...

> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/pci.h>
> +#include <linux/string.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/tty.h>
> +#include <linux/serial_reg.h>
> +#include <linux/serial_core.h>
> +#include <linux/8250_pci.h>
> +#include <linux/serial_8250.h>
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>

Why not sorted?
Do you need all of them?

...

> +       const unsigned int standard_baud_list[] = {50, 75, 110, 134, 150, 300,
> +                                               600, 1200, 1800, 2000, 2400, 3600,
> +                                               4800, 7200, 9600, 19200, 38400, 57600,
> +                                               115200, 125000, 136400, 150000, 166700,
> +                                               187500, 214300, 250000, 300000, 375000,
> +                                               500000, 750000, 1000000, 1500000};

Why?!

...

> +       if (baud == 38400 && (port->flags & UPF_SPD_MASK) == UPF_SPD_CUST) {

No. We don't want to have this in the new drivers. There is BOTHER
which might be used instead.

> +               writel((port->custom_divisor & 0x3FFFFFFF),
> +                      (port->membase + CLK_DIVISOR_REG));

...

> +                       frac = (((1000000000 - (quot * baud *
> +                               UART_BIT_SAMPLE_CNT)) / UART_BIT_SAMPLE_CNT)
> +                               * 255) / baud;

Funny indentation.

...

> +static int pci1xxxx_serial_probe(struct pci_dev *dev,
> +                                const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> +{
> +       struct pci1xxxx_8250 *priv;
> +       struct uart_8250_port uart;
> +       unsigned int nr_ports, i;
> +       int num_vectors = 0;
> +       int rc;
> +
> +       rc = pcim_enable_device(dev);

> +       pci_save_state(dev);

Why is this call here?

> +       if (rc)
> +               return rc;
> +
> +       nr_ports = pci1xxxx_get_num_ports(dev);
> +
> +       priv = devm_kzalloc(&dev->dev, struct_size(priv, line, nr_ports), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +       priv->membase = pcim_iomap(dev, 0, 0);
> +       priv->dev = dev;
> +       priv->nr =  nr_ports;

> +       if (!priv)
> +               return -ENOMEM;

You are dereferencing a NULL pointer before checking, how did you test
your code?

> +       pci_set_master(dev);
> +
> +       num_vectors  = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(dev, 1, 4, PCI_IRQ_ALL_TYPES);
> +       if (num_vectors < 0)
> +               return rc;

What does this mean?

> +       memset(&uart, 0, sizeof(uart));
> +       uart.port.flags = UPF_SHARE_IRQ | UPF_FIXED_TYPE | UPF_FIXED_PORT;
> +       uart.port.uartclk = 48000000;
> +       uart.port.dev = &dev->dev;
> +
> +       if (num_vectors == 4)
> +               writeb(UART_PCI_CTRL_SET_MULTIPLE_MSI, (priv->membase + UART_PCI_CTRL_REG));
> +       else
> +               uart.port.irq = pci_irq_vector(dev, 0);
> +
> +       for (i = 0; i < nr_ports; i++) {
> +               if (num_vectors == 4)
> +                       mchp_pci1xxxx_irq_assign(priv, &uart, i);
> +               rc = mchp_pci1xxxx_setup(priv, &uart, i);
> +               if (rc) {
> +                       dev_err(&dev->dev, "Failed to setup port %u\n", i);
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +               priv->line[i] = serial8250_register_8250_port(&uart);
> +
> +               if (priv->line[i] < 0) {
> +                       dev_err(&dev->dev,
> +                               "Couldn't register serial port %lx, irq %d, type %d, error %d\n",
> +                               uart.port.iobase, uart.port.irq,
> +                               uart.port.iotype, priv->line[i]);
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       pci_set_drvdata(dev, priv);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}

...

> +static const struct pci_device_id pci1xxxx_pci_tbl[] = {
> +       { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_MCHP_PCI1XXXX, PCI_DEVICE_ID_MCHP_PCI11010) },
> +       { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_MCHP_PCI1XXXX, PCI_DEVICE_ID_MCHP_PCI11101) },
> +       { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_MCHP_PCI1XXXX, PCI_DEVICE_ID_MCHP_PCI11400) },
> +       { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_MCHP_PCI1XXXX, PCI_DEVICE_ID_MCHP_PCI11414) },
> +       { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_MCHP_PCI1XXXX, PCI_DEVICE_ID_MCHP_PCI12000) },

> +       {0,}

{ } is enough

> +};

...

> +

Unneeded blank line

> +module_pci_driver(pci1xxxx_pci_driver);

...

> +       [PORT_MCHP16550A] = {
> +               .name           = "MCHP16550A",
> +               .fifo_size      = 256,
> +               .tx_loadsz      = 256,
> +               .fcr            = UART_FCR_ENABLE_FIFO | UART_FCR_R_TRIG_01,
> +               .rxtrig_bytes   = {2, 66, 130, 194},
> +               .flags          = UART_CAP_FIFO,
> +       },

Why do you need this?

...

> +/* MCHP 16550A UART with 256 byte FIFOs */
> +#define PORT_MCHP16550A        124

...and this?
If you really need this, try to find a gap in the numbering, there are some.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko