Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] i2c: add docs to clarify DMA handling

2017-06-06 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Wolfram, On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> I have it enabled all the time. So my devices may stop working... > > If you have enabled it all the time, then there won't be a difference > from now. Or? > > That also shows how rarely I2C DMA transfers are triggered from within

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] i2c: add docs to clarify DMA handling

2017-06-06 Thread Wolfram Sang
> I have it enabled all the time. So my devices may stop working... If you have enabled it all the time, then there won't be a difference from now. Or? That also shows how rarely I2C DMA transfers are triggered from within the kernel :) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] i2c: add docs to clarify DMA handling

2017-06-06 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Wolfram, On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> So it won't fall back to PIO if CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG is enabled? > > No, it will complain loudly with more details about the same things (and > some more). But for that to do, it cannot fall back to PIO. > > Otherwise, you might

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] i2c: add docs to clarify DMA handling

2017-06-06 Thread Wolfram Sang
> So it won't fall back to PIO if CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG is enabled? No, it will complain loudly with more details about the same things (and some more). But for that to do, it cannot fall back to PIO. Otherwise, you might get the idea that all is fine since you enabled CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG but mi

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] i2c: add docs to clarify DMA handling

2017-06-06 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Wolfram, On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> > +Therefore, it is *not* mandatory that the buffer of an i2c message is DMA >> > safe. >> > +It does not seem reasonable to apply additional burdens when the feature >> > is so >> > +rarely used. However, it is recommended to

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] i2c: add docs to clarify DMA handling

2017-06-06 Thread Wolfram Sang
> > +Therefore, it is *not* mandatory that the buffer of an i2c message is DMA > > safe. > > +It does not seem reasonable to apply additional burdens when the feature > > is so > > +rarely used. However, it is recommended to use a DMA-safe buffer, if your > > +message size is likely applicable f

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] i2c: add docs to clarify DMA handling

2017-06-06 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Wolfram, On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/i2c/DMA-considerations > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ > +Linux I2C and DMA > +- > + > +Given that I2C is a low-speed bus where largely small messages are > transferred, > +it is not conside

[RFC PATCH 2/4] i2c: add docs to clarify DMA handling

2017-06-06 Thread Wolfram Sang
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang --- Documentation/i2c/DMA-considerations | 28 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/i2c/DMA-considerations diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/DMA-considerations b/Documentation/i2c/DMA-considerations new file mod