lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 1/3] dt-bindings: dma: Add documentation for DMA domains
On 08-09-19, 10:47, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>
>
> On 06/09/2019 17.18, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> > On systems where multiple DMA controllers available, none Slave (for example
> > memcpy operation) users can not be described in DT as there is no device
> > involved from the DMA controller's point of view, DMA binding is not usable.
> > However in these systems still a peripheral might need to be serviced by or
> > it is better to serviced by specific DMA controller.
> > When a memcpy is used to/from a memory mapped region for example a DMA in the
> > same domain can perform better.
> > For generic software modules doing mem 2 mem operations it also matter that
> > they will get a channel from a controller which is faster in DDR to DDR mode
> > rather then from the first controller happen to be loaded.
> >
> > This property is inherited, so it may be specified in a device node or in any
> > of its parent nodes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/dma/dma-domain.yaml | 59 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/dma-domain.yaml
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/dma-domain.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/dma-domain.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..c2f182f30081
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/dma-domain.yaml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +%YAML 1.2
> > +---
> > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/dma/dma-controller.yaml#
> > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > +
> > +title: DMA Domain Controller Definition
> > +
> > +maintainers:
> > + - Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
> > +
> > +allOf:
> > + - $ref: "dma-controller.yaml#"
> > +
> > +description:
> > + On systems where multiple DMA controllers available, none Slave (for example
> > + memcpy operation) users can not be described in DT as there is no device
> > + involved from the DMA controller's point of view, DMA binding is not usable.
> > + However in these systems still a peripheral might need to be serviced by or
> > + it is better to serviced by specific DMA controller.
> > + When a memcpy is used to/from a memory mapped region for example a DMA in the
> > + same domain can perform better.
> > + For generic software modules doing mem 2 mem operations it also matter that
> > + they will get a channel from a controller which is faster in DDR to DDR mode
> > + rather then from the first controller happen to be loaded.
> > +
> > + This property is inherited, so it may be specified in a device node or in any
> > + of its parent nodes.
> > +
> > +properties:
> > + $dma-domain-controller:
>
> or domain-dma-controller?

I feel dma-domain-controller sounds fine as we are defining domains for
dmaengine. Another thought which comes here is that why not extend this to
slave as well and define dma-domain-controller for them as use that for
filtering, that is what we really need along with slave id in case a
specific channel is to be used by a peripheral

Thoughts..?

--
~Vinod

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-08 14:13    [W:0.056 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site