[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150206083345.GE4434@norris-Latitude-E6410>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:33:45 -0800
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Boris Brezillon <boris@...e-electrons.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sudhakar Gundubogula <sudhakar@...vell.com>,
Seif Mazareeb <seif@...vell.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mtd: nand: pxa3xx: Fix PIO FIFO draining
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:08:35 -0800
> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:10:28AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:56:03 +0100
> > > Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * According to the datasheet, when reading
> > > > + * from NDDB with BCH enabled, after each 32
> > > > + * bits reads, we have to make sure that the
> > > > + * NDSR.RDDREQ bit is set
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > I know the datasheet says this bit should be checked after each
> > > transfer, but I wonder if we shouldn't check it before reading the data.
> > > What happens if you drain all the data available in the FIFO ? Is the
> > > controller still setting the RDDREQ bit ?
> > >
> > > Moreover, the datasheet says this RDDREQ bit should be checked after
> > > each 32 bytes (not 32 bits) transfer.
> > > Testing it after each readl call shouldn't hurt though.
> >
> > Seems like that could quite possibly kill performance unnecessarily,
> > couldn't it? But then, PIO is probably not that fast in the first
> > place...
>
> Absolutety, my point was, it shouldn't hurt from a functional POV, but
> yes it will definitely impact performances.
OK.
> But that's not the first thing I would rework of if you're concerned
> about performances: when doing PIO read/write, the page read/write
> operations (I mean the part reading the internal fifo) are all done in
> interrupt context (called from pxa3xx_nand_irq), and doing this will
> prevent any other interrupt from taking place while you are
> draining/filling the FIFO :-(.
...which reminds me; the jiffies-based timeout in this patch isn't going
to work in interrupt context. So it needs to be replaced either with a
tight udelay() loop, or it needs to be moved out of the ISR.
> An alternative would be to move this part into the read/write_buf
> functions, but that's a lot of work...
Yeah, that probably would be preferable, but I suppose it's not urgent
either.
Brian
--
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