[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54BFF679.6010705@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:56:57 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
CC: "t.stanislaws@...sung.com" <t.stanislaws@...sung.com>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"robdclark@...il.com" <robdclark@...il.com>,
"daniel@...ll.ch" <daniel@...ll.ch>,
"m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 1/2] device: add dma_params->max_segment_count
Hi Sumit,
On 21/01/15 04:16, Sumit Semwal wrote:
> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
>
> For devices which have constraints about maximum number of segments in
> an sglist. For example, a device which could only deal with contiguous
> buffers would set max_segment_count to 1.
>
> The initial motivation is for devices sharing buffers via dma-buf,
> to allow the buffer exporter to know the constraints of other
> devices which have attached to the buffer. The dma_mask and fields
> in 'struct device_dma_parameters' tell the exporter everything else
> that is needed, except whether the importer has constraints about
> maximum number of segments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
> [sumits: Minor updates wrt comments on the first version]
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
> ---
> include/linux/device.h | 1 +
> include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
> index fb50673..a32f9b6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/device.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
> @@ -647,6 +647,7 @@ struct device_dma_parameters {
> * sg limitations.
> */
> unsigned int max_segment_size;
> + unsigned int max_segment_count; /* INT_MAX for unlimited */
> unsigned long segment_boundary_mask;
> };
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> index c3007cb..38e2835 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> @@ -154,6 +154,25 @@ static inline unsigned int dma_set_max_seg_size(struct device *dev,
> return -EIO;
> }
>
> +#define DMA_SEGMENTS_MAX_SEG_COUNT ((unsigned int) INT_MAX)
> +
> +static inline unsigned int dma_get_max_seg_count(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + return dev->dma_parms ?
> + dev->dma_parms->max_segment_count :
> + DMA_SEGMENTS_MAX_SEG_COUNT;
> +}
I know this copies the style of the existing code, but unfortunately it
also copies the subtle brokenness. Plenty of drivers seem to set up a
dma_parms struct just for max_segment_size, thus chances are you'll come
across a max_segment_count of 0 sooner or later. How badly is that going
to break things? I posted a fix recently[1] having hit this problem with
segment_boundary_mask in IOMMU code.
> +
> +static inline int dma_set_max_seg_count(struct device *dev,
> + unsigned int count)
> +{
> + if (dev->dma_parms) {
> + dev->dma_parms->max_segment_count = count;
> + return 0;
> + } else
This "else" is just as unnecessary as the other two I've taken out ;)
Robin.
[1]:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.iommu/8175/
> + return -EIO;
> +}
> +
> static inline unsigned long dma_get_seg_boundary(struct device *dev)
> {
> return dev->dma_parms ?
>
--
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