[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51112749.10603@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:37:45 -0500
From: Cyril Chemparathy <cyril@...com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
<balbi@...com>, Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>,
Linux Documentation List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
"Nair, Sandeep" <sandeep_n@...com>, Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
Matt Porter <mporter@...com>,
Devicetree Discuss <devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Linux OMAP List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux DaVinci Kernel List
<davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com>,
"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@...com>,
Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Landley <rob@...dley.net>, Dan Williams <djbw@...com>,
Linux SPI Devel List
<spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/10] ARM: davinci: move private EDMA API to arm/common
On 02/05/2013 07:38 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 09:47:38PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Monday 04 February 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> So I think the above concerns are moot. The callback we can
>>> set on cookies is entirely optional, and it's even implemented by
>>> each DMA engine, and some may not even support it but require
>>> polling, and then it won't even be implemented by the driver.
>>
>> Just to ensure that everybody is talking about the same thing here:
>> Is it just the callback that is optional, or also the interrupt
>> coming from the hardware?
>
> If everyone implements stuff correctly, both. The callback most certainly
> is optional as things stand. The interrupt - that depends on the DMA
> engine.
>
> Some DMA engines you can't avoid it because you need to reprogram the
> hardware with the next+1 transfer upon completion of an existing transfer.
> Others may allow you to chain transfers in hardware. That's all up to
> how the DMA engine driver is implemented and how the hardware behaves.
>
> Now, there's another problem here: that is, people abuse the API. People
> don't pass DMA_CTRL_ACK | DMA_PREP_INTERRUPT into their operations by
> default. People like typing '0'.
>
> The intention of the "DMA_PREP_INTERRUPT" is significant here: it means
> "ask the hardware to send an interrupt upon completion of this transfer".
>
> Because soo many people like to type '0' instead in their DMA engine
> clients, it means that this flag is utterly useless today - you have to
> ignore it. So there's _no_ way for client drivers to actually tell the
> a DMA engine driver which _doesn't_ need to signal interrupts at the end
> of every transfer not to do so.
>
> So yes, the DMA engine API supports it. Whether the _implementations_
> themselves do is very much hit and miss (and in reality is much more
> miss than hit.)
>
Don't these assume that the driver can determine the need for an
interrupt upfront at prep/submit time? AFAICT, this assumption doesn't
hold true with NAPI.
Thanks
-- Cyril.
--
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