[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55C4B130.5020409@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:22:56 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
nsekhar@...com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, john.ogness@...utronix.de,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma: omap-dma: add support for pause of non-cyclic transfers
On 08/07/2015 03:17 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:35:45PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> On 08/07/2015 12:55 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:41:57AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>>> This DMA driver is used by 8250-omap on DRA7-evm. There is one
>>>> requirement that is to pause a transfer. This is currently used on the RX
>>>> side. It is possible that the UART HW aborted the RX (UART's RX-timeout)
>>>> but the DMA controller starts the transfer shortly after.
>>>> Before we can manually purge the FIFO we need to pause the transfer,
>>>> check how many bytes it already received and terminate the transfer
>>>> without it making any progress.
>>>>
>>>> >From testing on the TX side it seems that it is possible that we invoke
>>>> pause once the transfer has completed which is indicated by the missing
>>>> CCR_ENABLE bit but before the interrupt has been noticed. In that case the
>>>> interrupt will come even after disabling it.
>>>
>>> How do you cope with the OMAP DMA hardware clearing its FIFO when you
>>> pause it?
>>
>> I don't
>
> ... and so you introduce a silent data loss bug into the driver. That's
> not very clever.
>
>> Right now the 820-omap (8250-dma in general, too but they don't use
>> this driver) pause only the RX transfer in an error condition. This
>> means it is only device-to-mem transfer. I only mentioned the TX
>> transfer here since this was easier to test.
>
> That may be how 8250 works, but 8250 is not everything. You can't ignore
> this problem. You have to deal with it - either by not allowing a channel
> that would loose data to be paused, or by recovering from that condition.
> You're not doing either in your patch.
>
> Therefore, I have no other option but to NAK your change. Sorry.
>
> Please fix this.
Would it be okay if I only allow pause for RX-transfers?
For TX-transfers, I would need to update the start-address so the
transfers begins where it stopped. However based on your concern I
can't really assume that the position reported by the HW is the correct
one.
Sebastian
--
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