lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] dmaengine: pl330: flush before wait, and add dev burst support.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> wrote:
>
> sorry if it wasnt clear earlier, the lines below should come after the ---
> line. git-am skips that part while applying..

ok

>>
>> + /* do FLUSHP at beginning to clear any stale dma requests before the
>> + * first WFP.
>> + */
>
> multiline comments should be:
>
> /*
> * this is an example of multi-line
> * comment
> */
>
> Pls fix at this and other places...

ok

>
>> static inline int _ldst_memtodev(struct pl330_dmac *pl330,
>> unsigned dry_run, u8 buf[],
>> - const struct _xfer_spec *pxs, int cyc)
>> + const struct _xfer_spec *pxs, int cyc,
>> + enum pl330_cond cond)
>> {
>> int off = 0;
>> - enum pl330_cond cond;
>>
>> if (pl330->quirks & PL330_QUIRK_BROKEN_NO_FLUSHP)
>> cond = BURST;
>> - else
>> - cond = SINGLE;
>>
>> + /* do FLUSHP at beginning to clear any stale dma requests before the
>> + * first WFP.
>> + */
>> + if (!(pl330->quirks & PL330_QUIRK_BROKEN_NO_FLUSHP))
>> + off += _emit_FLUSHP(dry_run, &buf[off], pxs->desc->peri);
>> while (cyc--) {
>> off += _emit_WFP(dry_run, &buf[off], cond, pxs->desc->peri);
>> off += _emit_LD(dry_run, &buf[off], ALWAYS);
>> - off += _emit_STP(dry_run, &buf[off], cond, pxs->desc->peri);
>> -
>> - if (!(pl330->quirks & PL330_QUIRK_BROKEN_NO_FLUSHP))
>> - off += _emit_FLUSHP(dry_run, &buf[off],
>> - pxs->desc->peri);
>> + if (cond == ALWAYS) {
>> + off += _emit_STP(dry_run, &buf[off], SINGLE,
>> + pxs->desc->peri);
>> + off += _emit_STP(dry_run, &buf[off], BURST,
>> + pxs->desc->peri);
>> + } else {
>> + off += _emit_STP(dry_run, &buf[off], cond,
>> + pxs->desc->peri);
>> + }
>
> this looks quite similar to previous routine above, if so can we please make
> it common function and invoke from both of these...

_ldst_memtodev and _ldst_devtomem are similar, but they were even more
similar before my patch. Do I really have to refactor existing code
to get my patch applied? I'm not trying to take over maintainership
of the pl330.c driver.

>
>> +static int _dregs(struct pl330_dmac *pl330, unsigned int dry_run, u8 buf[],
>> + const struct _xfer_spec *pxs, int transfer_length)
>> +{
>> + int off = 0;
>> + int dregs_ccr;
>> +
>> + if (transfer_length == 0)
>> + return off;
>> +
>> + switch (pxs->desc->rqtype) {
>> + case DMA_MEM_TO_DEV:
>> + off += _ldst_memtodev(pl330, dry_run, &buf[off], pxs,
>> + transfer_length, SINGLE);
>> + break;
>
> empty line after each case pls

ok

>
>> + case DMA_DEV_TO_MEM:
>> + off += _ldst_devtomem(pl330, dry_run, &buf[off], pxs,
>> + transfer_length, SINGLE);
>> + break;
>> + case DMA_MEM_TO_MEM:
>> + dregs_ccr = pxs->ccr;
>> + dregs_ccr &= ~((0xf << CC_SRCBRSTLEN_SHFT) |
>> + (0xf << CC_DSTBRSTLEN_SHFT));
>> + dregs_ccr |= (((transfer_length - 1) & 0xf) <<
>> + CC_SRCBRSTLEN_SHFT);
>> + dregs_ccr |= (((transfer_length - 1) & 0xf) <<
>> + CC_DSTBRSTLEN_SHFT);
>> + off += _emit_MOV(dry_run, &buf[off], CCR, dregs_ccr);
>> + off += _ldst_memtomem(dry_run, &buf[off], pxs, 1);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + off += 0x40000000; /* Scare off the Client */
>
> Can you explain this bit, shouldnt this be err?
>

I just copied that behavior from the existing _bursts() function. I
guess the original author's idea was returning a big offset would
result in a dry run failure due to exceeding the maximum buffer size.
I do agree an error would be better, although it would require
refactoring since the return values from _bursts and _dregs are not
checked for errors, they just blindly add the return value to the
offset.

>> @@ -1303,11 +1362,6 @@ static int _setup_req(struct pl330_dmac *pl330, unsigned dry_run,
>> /* DMAMOV CCR, ccr */
>> off += _emit_MOV(dry_run, &buf[off], CCR, pxs->ccr);
>>
>> - x = &pxs->desc->px;
>> - /* Error if xfer length is not aligned at burst size */
>> - if (x->bytes % (BRST_SIZE(pxs->ccr) * BRST_LEN(pxs->ccr)))
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> -
>> off += _setup_xfer(pl330, dry_run, &buf[off], pxs);
>>
>> /* DMASEV peripheral/event */
>> @@ -2115,15 +2169,29 @@ static int pl330_config(struct dma_chan *chan,
>> pch->fifo_addr = slave_config->dst_addr;
>> if (slave_config->dst_addr_width)
>> pch->burst_sz = __ffs(slave_config->dst_addr_width);
>> - if (slave_config->dst_maxburst)
>> - pch->burst_len = slave_config->dst_maxburst;
>> + if (pch->dmac->quirks & PL330_QUIRK_BROKEN_NO_FLUSHP)
>> + pch->burst_len = 1;
>
> so in this case we don't honour the requested burst length?
>

I don't have any experience with the PL330_QUIRK_BROKEN_NO_FLUSHP
hardware, or knowledge of how it (mis)behaves. So I just tried to
maintain the existing behavior as much as possible. The old code
advertised the max burst length as 1 with PL330_QUIRK_BROKEN_NO_FLUSHP
hardware, and programmed the pl330 to respond only to burst requests
(and of course the old code never did any peripheral bursts longer
than 1). I actually don't mind changing the behavior of
PL330_QUIRK_BROKEN_NO_FLUSHP but it seems like someone with more
knowledge of that hardware should be involved, like the rock-chips.com
guys who introduced it in commit
271e1b86e69140fe65718ae8a264284c46d3129d ,

>> + else if (slave_config->dst_maxburst) {
>> + if (slave_config->dst_maxburst > PL330_MAX_BURST)
>> + pch->burst_len = PL330_MAX_BURST;
>> + else
>> + pch->burst_len = slave_config->dst_maxburst;
>> + } else
>> + pch->burst_len = 1;
>> } else if (slave_config->direction == DMA_DEV_TO_MEM) {
>> if (slave_config->src_addr)
>> pch->fifo_addr = slave_config->src_addr;
>> if (slave_config->src_addr_width)
>> pch->burst_sz = __ffs(slave_config->src_addr_width);
>> - if (slave_config->src_maxburst)
>> - pch->burst_len = slave_config->src_maxburst;
>> + if (pch->dmac->quirks & PL330_QUIRK_BROKEN_NO_FLUSHP)
>> + pch->burst_len = 1;
>> + else if (slave_config->src_maxburst) {
>> + if (slave_config->src_maxburst > PL330_MAX_BURST)
>> + pch->burst_len = PL330_MAX_BURST;
>> + else
>> + pch->burst_len = slave_config->src_maxburst;
>> + } else
>> + pch->burst_len = 1;
>
> again this looks duplicate..
> --
> ~Vinod

Ok, I'll make a little helper function.

--
Frank

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-11 17:10    [W:0.098 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site