[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51FAC9B9.3050903@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 15:48:57 -0500
From: Joel Fernandes <joelf@...com>
To: <joelf@...com>
CC: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Sricharan R <r.sricharan@...com>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>,
Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
Matt Porter <matt@...orter.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>, Dan Williams <djbw@...com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...aro.org>,
Benoit Cousson <benoit.cousson@...aro.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Balaji TK <balajitk@...com>,
Gururaja Hebbar <gururaja.hebbar@...com>,
Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
Jason Kridner <jkridner@...gleboard.org>,
Linux OMAP List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux DaVinci Kernel List
<davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] dma: edma: Find missed events and issue them
Just some corrections here..
On 08/01/2013 03:28 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> 2. If the interrupt handler for some reason doesn't complete or get
>>> service in time, we will end up DMA'ing incorrect data as events
>>> wouldn't stop coming in even if interrupt is not yet handled (in your
>>> example linked sets P1 or P2 would be old ones being repeated). Where as
>>> with my method, we are not doing any DMA once we finish the current
>>> MAX_NR_SG set even if events continue to come.
>>
>> Where is repetition and possibility of wrong data being transferred? We
>> have a linear list of PaRAM sets - not a loop. You would link the end to
>> PaRAM set chain to dummy PaRAM set which BTW will not cause missed
>> events. The more number of PaRAM sets you add to the chain, the more
>
> There would have to be a loop, how else would you ensure continuity and
> uninterrupted DMA?
>
> Consider if you have 2 sets of linked sets:
> L1 is the first set of Linked sets and L2 is the second.
>
> When L1 is done, EDMA continues with L2 (due to the link) while
> interrupt handler prepares L1. The continuity depends on L1 being linked
> to L2. Only the absolute last break up of the MAX_NR_SG linked set will
> be linked to Dummy.
>
> So consider MAX_NR_SG=10, and sg_len = 35
>
> L1 - L2 - L1 - L1 - Dummy
Should be,
L1 - L2 - L1 - L2 - Dummy
>
> The split would be in number of slots,
> 10 - 10 - 10 - 5 - Dummy
>
>> time CPU gets to intervene before DMA eventually stalls. This is a
>> tradeoff system designers can manage.
>
> Consider what happens in the case where MAX_SG_NR=1 or 2. In that case,
> there's a change we might not get enough time for the interrupt handler
> to setup next series of linked set.
>
> Some how this limitation has to be overcome by advising in comments than
> MAX_SG_NR should always be greater than a certain number to ensure
> proper operation.
s/than/that/
Thanks,
-Joel
--
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