Alan Stern wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c
>> @@ -1260,6 +1260,34 @@ static void hcd_free_coherent(struct usb_bus *bus,
>> dma_addr_t *dma_handle,
>> *dma_handle = 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int urb_needs_setup_dma_map(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb)
>> +{
>> + return !(urb->transfer_flags & URB_NO_SETUP_DMA_MAP) ||
>> + ((hcd->driver->flags & HCD_NO_COHERENT_MEM) &&
>> + urb->setup_dma == ~(dma_addr_t)0);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int urb_needs_setup_dma_unmap(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb)
>> +{
>> + return !(urb->transfer_flags & URB_NO_SETUP_DMA_MAP) ||
>> + ((hcd->driver->flags & HCD_NO_COHERENT_MEM) &&
>> + urb->setup_dma && urb->setup_dma != ~(dma_addr_t)0);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int urb_needs_transfer_dma_map(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb)
>> +{
>> + return !(urb->transfer_flags & URB_NO_TRANSFER_DMA_MAP) ||
>> + ((hcd->driver->flags & HCD_NO_COHERENT_MEM) &&
>> + urb->transfer_dma == ~(dma_addr_t)0);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int urb_needs_transfer_dma_unmap(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb
>> *urb)
>> +{
>> + return !(urb->transfer_flags & URB_NO_TRANSFER_DMA_MAP) ||
>> + ((hcd->driver->flags & HCD_NO_COHERENT_MEM) &&
>> + urb->transfer_dma && urb->transfer_dma != ~(dma_addr_t)0);
>> +}
>> +
>
> These functions would be a lot easier to understand if they were
> expanded into multiple test and return statements, rather than
> squeezing all the Boolean manipulations into single expressions. (Not
> to mention the fact that other developement is going to make them even
> more complicated than they are now...)
>
Yes, agreed. I'll enhance that, thanks.
> Also, I can't help thinking that the corresponding *_map() and
> *_unmap() routines are so similar, it ought to be possible to combine
> them. The only difference is a check for a NULL DMA address, and it's
> not clear to me why it is present. It's also not clear why the test
> for a DMA address of all ones is present. Maybe they both can be
> removed.
>
I think too that I can simplify that logic.
I added those checks in a defensive way seeking robustness while I familiarize
with the USB stack innards. So far, those cases are just avoiding mappings when
urb_needs_transfer_dma_map()/urb_needs_transfer_dma_unmap() are called with
urb->transfer_buffer == 0 and urb->transfer_dma == 0.
I guess that those cases are related to scatterlist-based urb requests.
What should be the correct way to check if a urb has already been
scatter/gather-mapped?
The final logic would be something like:
- map if URB_NO_TRANSFER_DMA_MAP is cleared
- otherwise (URB_TRANSFER_NO_DMA_MAP is set so) map if HCD_NO_COHERENT_MEM is
set _and_ it's not a scatter/gather request (as that should have been mapped
already by usb_buffer_map_sg())
Am I on the right path?
> Alan Stern
>
Thanks,
Albert
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
