On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: > > >> Are we now sacrificing that ability on the altar of simplification? > >> > >> I actually think not, but that we should do periph-to-periph transfers > >> in some other way, and that the .dir attribute should go away from > >> the struct stedma40_chan_cfg as well but I'm not entirely sure. > >> Someone else? > > > > Although the DMA40 device supports device-to-device transfers, Linux > > does not, so this subject is moot AFAICT. > > So while there is no active usecase, Linux surely has the ambition to do > that as can be seen in: > > /** > * enum dma_transfer_direction - dma transfer mode and direction indicator > * @DMA_MEM_TO_MEM: Async/Memcpy mode > * @DMA_MEM_TO_DEV: Slave mode & From Memory to Device > * @DMA_DEV_TO_MEM: Slave mode & From Device to Memory > * @DMA_DEV_TO_DEV: Slave mode & From Device to Device > */ > enum dma_transfer_direction { > DMA_MEM_TO_MEM, > DMA_MEM_TO_DEV, > DMA_DEV_TO_MEM, > DMA_DEV_TO_DEV, > DMA_TRANS_NONE, > }; > > I think we need a handshake with Vinod on this.
Sure. He is CC'ed. > >> If you're doing this change, and after this RX and TX has no semantical > >> meaning for these lists, join these two config lists > >> into one. > > > > I agree. See patch: ARM: ux500: Strip out duplicate USB DMA configuration > > Please squash the applicable portions into this patch then, I don't > particularly like fix-later patchstack patterns, it makes series hard to > review. Okay. > >> (...) > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-ux500/usb.c b/arch/arm/mach-ux500/usb.c > >> > static u32 d40_chan_has_events(struct d40_chan *d40c) > >> > @@ -1744,8 +1740,6 @@ static int d40_validate_conf(struct d40_chan *d40c, > >> > struct stedma40_chan_cfg *conf) > >> > { > >> > int res = 0; > >> > - u32 dst_event_group = D40_TYPE_TO_GROUP(conf->dst_dev_type); > >> > - u32 src_event_group = D40_TYPE_TO_GROUP(conf->src_dev_type); > >> > >> Please explain why this is not important to check anymore, I'm not > >> following. > >> > >> > if (conf->dir == STEDMA40_MEM_TO_PERIPH && > >> > - dst_event_group == STEDMA40_DEV_DST_MEMORY) { > >> > - chan_err(d40c, "Invalid dst\n"); > >> > + d40c->base->plat_data->dev_tx[conf->dev_type] == 0 && > >> > + d40c->runtime_addr == 0) { > >> > + chan_err(d40c, "Invalid TX channel address (%d)\n", > >> > + conf->dev_type); > >> > >> Like here. We are checking for inconsistency between group > >> and channel direction, why is it no longer important to check this? > > > > I'm not entirely sure how this ever worked: > > > > #define D40_TYPE_TO_GROUP(type) (type / 16) > > #define STEDMA40_DEV_DST_MEMORY (-1) > > > > (dev_type / 16) == -1 > > > > What number would dev_type have to be for this to be true? -16? > > No, since it's u32 it cannot really represent negative numbers. > > This is equivalent: > #define D40_TYPE_TO_GROUP(type) (type >> 4) > > As -1 is 0xffffffff in u32 it will compare at best > 0x0fffffff to 0xfffffff. And that is non-attainable. > > So the line checking event group for == DTEDMA40_DEV_DST_MEMORY > should be removed in a separate patch prior to this one, with > something like the above as commit message. > > We cannot really mix that cleanup into this patch... I'm happy to do that. > >> > if (conf->dir == STEDMA40_PERIPH_TO_MEM && > >> > - src_event_group == STEDMA40_DEV_SRC_MEMORY) { > >> > - chan_err(d40c, "Invalid src\n"); > >> > - res = -EINVAL; > >> > - } > > > > As above. > > And same comment. > > >> > - if (conf->dir == STEDMA40_PERIPH_TO_PERIPH && > >> > - (src_event_group != dst_event_group)) { > >> > - chan_err(d40c, "Invalid event group\n"); > >> > + d40c->base->plat_data->dev_rx[conf->dev_type] == 0 && > >> > + d40c->runtime_addr == 0) { > >> > + chan_err(d40c, "Invalid RX channel address (%d)\n", > >> > + conf->dev_type); > >> > >> Same here. > > > > I stopped all 'dev_src/dev_dest' comparisons, as there is only 'dev' now. > > It is checking for: > conf->dir == STEDMA40_PERIPH_TO_PERIPH > > As we may want to support DEV_TO_DEV at some point. > > Then no longer, and that is not related to $SUBJECT. That's not why I'm removing it. The statement can never be true due to the fact that the second evaluation (src_event_group != dst_event_group) can never be true, which is a direct effect of 'THIS_PATCH'. > >> (...) > >> > @@ -2062,7 +2035,7 @@ static int d40_free_dma(struct d40_chan *d40c) > >> > { > >> > > >> > int res = 0; > >> > - u32 event; > >> > + u32 event = D40_TYPE_TO_EVENT(d40c->dma_cfg.dev_type); > >> > struct d40_phy_res *phy = d40c->phy_chan; > >> > bool is_src; > >> > > >> > @@ -2081,13 +2054,11 @@ static int d40_free_dma(struct d40_chan *d40c) > >> > } > >> > > >> > if (d40c->dma_cfg.dir == STEDMA40_MEM_TO_PERIPH || > >> > - d40c->dma_cfg.dir == STEDMA40_MEM_TO_MEM) { > >> > - event = D40_TYPE_TO_EVENT(d40c->dma_cfg.dst_dev_type); > >> > + d40c->dma_cfg.dir == STEDMA40_MEM_TO_MEM) > >> > >> Why did you just stop checking dma_cfg.dir for == STEDMA40_MEM_TO_MEM > >> above? > > > > That's not what this is doing. STEDMA40_MEM_TO_MEM is still there. > > > >> And why is dma_cfg.dir suddenly hardcoded to MEM_TO_MEM?? > > > > It's not. Look again. :) > > Argh I misread == MEM_TO_MEM for = MEM_TO_MEM ... > comparison to assignment. Sorry. > > >> This seems like a totally unrelated change and should it be done > >> it need to be a separate patch with a separate explanation > >> AFAICT. > >> > >> This seems to happen in some other places too, > > > > If you could point those out, I'll re-evaluate, or explain. > > I'm after that the change to omit checks for some impossible > type/group configs need to be a separate patch. > > >> and I find it > >> very hard to follow the changes here ... can you please consider > >> splitting the changes to groups and types semantics into a separate > >> patch? > > > > Can you read the patch again and reconsider please? > > Yes and now I am even more convinced that the patch needs > to be split. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/