linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dmaengine: Add a documentation for the dma controller API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:26:28 +0530
From:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Antoine Ténart <antoine@...e-electrons.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas@...e-electrons.com>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris@...e-electrons.com>,
	Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
	laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, ludovic.desroches@...el.com,
	Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dmaengine: Add a documentation for the
 dma controller API

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:36:07PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 06:03:13PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > The dmaengine is neither trivial nor properly documented at the moment, which
> > > means a lot of trial and error development, which is not that good for such a
> > > central piece of the system.
> > > 
> > > Attempt at making such a documentation.
> > 
> > Did you miss Documentation/dmaengine.txt, lots of this is already covered
> > there. But yes i would be really glad to know what isnt, so that we can fix
> > that.
> 
> I didn't miss it. But I feel like it describes quite nicely the slave
> API, but doesn't help at all whenever you're writing a DMAengine driver.
> 
> The first lines of the existing document makes it quite clear too.
> 
> There's still a bit of duplication, but I don't feel it's such a big
> deal.
And that made me think that you might have missed it.

I am okay for idea to have this document but it needs to co-exist one. No
point in duplicating as it can create ambiguity in future.
> 
> What I'd like to do with the documentation I just sent is basically
> have a clear idea whenever you step into dmaengine what you can/cannot
> do, and have a reference document explaining what's expected by the
> framework, and hopefully have unified drivers that follow this
> pattern.
Sure, can you pls modify this to avoid duplication. I would be happy to
apply that :)

> 
> Because, for the moment, we're pretty much left in the dark with
> different drivers doing the same thing in completetely different ways,
> with basically no way to tell if it's either the framework that
> requires such behaviour, or if the author was just feeling creative.
> 
> There's numerous examples for this at the moment:
>   - The GFP flags, with different drivers using either GFP_ATOMIC,
>     GFP_NOWAIT or GFP_KERNEL in the same functions
>   - Having to set device_slave_caps or not?
>   - Some drivers use dma_run_depedencies, some other don't
>   - That might just be my experience, but judging from previous
>     commits, DMA_PRIVATE is completely obscure, and we just set it
>     because it was making it work, without knowing what it was
>     supposed to do.
>   - etc.

Thanks for highlighting we should definitely add these in Documentation

> 
> And basically, we have no way to tell at the moment which one is
> right and which one needs fixing.
> 
> The corollary being that it cripples the whole community ability to
> maintain the framework and make it evolve.
> 
> > > +  * device_slave_caps
> > > +    - Isn't that redundant with the cap_mask already?
> > > +    - Only a few drivers seem to implement it
> > For audio to know what your channel can do rather than hardcoding it
> 
> Ah, yes, I see it now. It's not related to the caps mask at all.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to move this to the
> framework, and have these informations provided through the struct
> dma_device? Or would it have some non-trivial side-effects?
Well the problem is ability to have this queried uniformly from all drivers
across subsystems. If we can do this that would be nice.
> 
> > > +  * dma cookies?
> > cookie is dma transaction representation which is monotonically incrementing
> > number.
> 
> Ok, and it identifies a unique dma_async_tx_descriptor, right?
Yup and this basically represents transactions you have submitted. Thats why
cookie is allocated at tx_submit.

Thanks

-- 
~Vinod


-- 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)