[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314292850.1606.88.camel@vkoul-udesk3>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 22:50:50 +0530
From: "Koul, Vinod" <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma: shdma: transfer based runtime PM
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 16:55 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Koul, Vinod wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 16:37 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 16:55 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > > > Currently the shdma dmaengine driver uses runtime PM to save power, when
> > > > > no channel on the specific controller is requested by a user. This patch
> > > > > switches the driver to count individual DMA transfers. That way the
> > > > > controller can be powered down between transfers, even if some of its
> > > > > channels are in use.
> > > > No, I don't agree with the approach here, you don't need to count the
> > > > transfers, the runtime_pm framework does that very well for you.
> > > >
> > > > What you need to do is to call pm_runtime_get() in your .issue_pending
> > > > callback (NOT in tx_submit anyway, this needs to be fixed in driver, see
> > > > the Documentation/dmaengine.txt
> > > > And once the transfer has completed you need to call pm_rumtime_put()
> > >
> > > This has been discussed before:
> > >
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=131004613801231&w=2
> > uh, yes but at least the runtime_xxx needs to get fixed.
>
> This isn't so easy either. In principle, yes, I know, that pm_runtime_*
> calls count depth. But I don't think the DMA case is simple enough for
> that. It's not necessarily one in - one out. Think about terminating
> transfers, timing out, closing the channel, etc. In those cases you'd have
> to count pending transfers and pm_runtime_put() for each of them. This is
> even less trivial on shdma, where DMA transfers get split into sg-lists,
> which are then all queued on a single queue. So, you'd have to scan that
> queue and check for transfer borders... That's why I decided that doing
> just one get() on the first descriptor and one put() on the last one would
> be easier and more robust.
Wont it be easy to to do:
- pm_runtime_get() in each submit
- pm_runtime_put() in each callback
Normal case above would work just fine
- In terminate case, count the number of issued transactions, and call
pm_runtime_put() for each canceled transaction
(i am assuming that for each timeout error, the client will call
terminate)
Let me know if there is a case for you which doesn't fit in above
--
~Vinod
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists