Message-ID: <CAFd313zqetJq1S8aXK4i_PCLK1RCAwkzoiYGUd_9YSYvwjA=iw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:08:21 +0530
From:	Rameshwar Sahu <rsahu@....com>
To:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc:	dan.j.williams@...el.com, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	jcm@...hat.com, patches@....com, Loc Ho <lho@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] dmaengine: Add support for APM X-Gene SoC DMA
 engine driver

Hi Vinod,

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 03:03:14PM +0530, Rameshwar Sahu wrote:
>> Hi Vinod,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Rameshwar Sahu <rsahu@....com> wrote:
>> > Hi Vinod,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 05:24:34PM +0530, Rameshwar Sahu wrote:
>> >>> >> >> +static void xgene_dma_free_desc_list_reverse(struct xgene_dma_chan *chan,
>> >>> >> >> +                                          struct list_head *list)
>> >>> >> > do we really care about free order?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Yes it start dellocation of descriptor by tail.
>> >>> > and why by tail is not clear.
>> >>> We can free allocated descriptor in forward order from head or in
>> >>> reverse order, I just followed here fsldma.c driver.
>> >>> Does this make sense ??
>> >> No, you have two APIs to free list. Why do you need two?
>> >
>> > Yes, basically we have tow API to free list.
>> > xgene_dma_free_desc_list_reverse will call if any failure in
>> > allocation of memory from DMA pool in prep routines.
>> > Like e.g. in prep routing we have some descriptors allocated and still
>> > need to get descriptor to complete the DMA request and failure happen,
>> > so we need to free all allocated descriptor.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> > where are you mapping dma buffers?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>  I didn't get you here. Can you please explain me here what you mean.
>> >>> >> As per my understanding client should map the dma buffer and give the
>> >>> >> physical address and size to this callback prep routines.
>> >>> > not for memcpy, that is true for slave transfers
>> >>> >
>> >>> > For mempcy the idea is that drivers will do buffer mapping
>> >>>
>> >>> Still I am clear here, why memcpy will do buffer mapping, I see other
>> >>> drivers and also async_memcpy.c , they only map it and pass mapped
>> >>> physical dma address to driver.
>> >>>
>> >>> Buffer mapping mean you here is dma_map_xxx ?? Am I correct.
>> >> Yes
>> >
>> > I have confusion here, I don't see any driver dma buffer mapping in
>> > prep_dma_memcpy.
>> > Can you please clear me here if driver does this on behalf of client,
>> > like any example so that I can proceed further.
>>
>> Any comment here ??
> The advise typically is that for memcpy the dma mapping should be done by
> client. For now this is okay as we have precedence, let me check with Dan.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> > why are you calling this here, status check shouldnt do this...
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Okay, I will remove it.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >> +                     spin_unlock_bh(&chan->lock);
>> >>> >> >> +                     return DMA_IN_PROGRESS;
>> >>> >> > residue here is size of transacation.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> We can't calculate here residue size. We don't have any controller
>> >>> >> register which will tell about remaining transaction size.
>> >>> > Okay if you cant calculate residue why do we have this fn?
>> >>>
>> >>> So basically case here for me is completion of dma descriptor
>> >>> submitted to hw is not same as order of submission to hw.
>> >>> So scenario coming in multithread running :e.g. let's assume we have
>> >>> submitted two descriptors first has cookie 1001 and second has 1002,
>> >>> now 1002 is completed first, so updated last_completed_cookie as 1002
>> >>> but not yer checked for dma_tx_status, and then first cookie completes
>> >>> and update last_completed_cookie as 1001, now second transaction check
>> >>> for tx_status and it get DMA_IN_PROGRESS, because
>> >>> last_completed_cookie(1001) is less than second transaction's
>> >>> cookie(1002).
>> >>>
>> >>> Due to this issue I am traversing that transaction in pending list and
>> >>> running list, if not there means we are done.
>> >>>
>> >>> Does this make sense??
>> >> That only convinces me that there is something not so correct.
>> >>
>> >> To help me understand pls let me know if below is fine:
>> >> - for a physical channel, do you submit multiple transactions?
>> >
>> > Yes
>> >
>> >> - if yes, how does DMA deal with multiple transactions, how does it schedule
>> >>   them?
>> >
>> > So , basically we submit multiple descriptor to dma physical channel,
>> > and dma engine execute it one by one and give us completion callback.
>> > So in this way we expect callback on same order as submission order
>> > and it does also, no issue.
>> >
>> > But problem is with supporting p+q offload, here we have P
>> > functionality supports in dma physical channel 0 and Q functionality
>> > supports in dma physical channel 1. So for pq we need to submit two
>> > descriptor, one to channel 0 and second to channel1, in this case we
>> > can't expect the completion order, because channnel 0 can finish P
>> > before Q or vice versa, and we need to wait to complete both before
>> > calling client callback() and completing cookie.
>> > Second thing we submit memcpy and sg on same channel, and can complete
>> > before even though if it submitted after PQ.
>>
>> So our SoC dma engine hw design idea was to get more throughput while
>> running two channel concurrent and calculating the P and Q together,
>> but somehow now today we came to scenario where running P and Q on
>> different channel causing hang to dmaengine, some hw bug, So now I am
>> going to support P and Q generation in same channel, so above
>> mentioned cookie status scenario will never come.
>> I will send you the patch for review.
> Okay, so I am going to expect the status callback will do as per API
> expectations and these kinds of hacks will be absent in the code :)

Yes, I will send patch ASAP for further review.
>
> --
> ~Vinod
>>
>> Thanks,
>> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ~Vinod
>> >> --
>> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
>> >> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> --
--
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