Date:	Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:22:42 +0000
From:	Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>
To:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
CC:	"dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>,
	Soren Brinkmann <sorenb@...inx.com>,
	"moritz.fischer@...us.com" <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
	"anirudha@...inx.com" <anirudha@...inx.com>,
	"dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anirudha Sarangi <anirudh@...inx.com>,
	Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri <punnaia@...inx.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v9] dmaengine: Add Xilinx AXI Direct Memory Access
 Engine driver support

Hi Vinod,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinod Koul [mailto:vinod.koul@...el.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:25 PM
> To: Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
> Cc: dan.j.williams@...el.com; Michal Simek; Soren Brinkmann;
> moritz.fischer@...us.com; anirudha@...inx.com; dmaengine@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Anirudha
> Sarangi; Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] dmaengine: Add Xilinx AXI Direct Memory Access Engine
> driver support
> 
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:23:35AM +0000, Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
> wrote:
> > > > > Pls justify why we should have two drivers. Looking at code
> > > > > makes me think otherwise
> > > >
> > > >
> > > [pls wrap your messages within 80 chars, I have reflowed below]
> 
> And ignoring recommendations does not help!!

Sorry for the noise will fix it next time on wards...

> 
> 
> > > > I agree with you and even initially we had a common driver with
> > > > the similar implementation as you were mentioning.  Later on,
> > > > being soft IPs, new features were added and the IPs became
> > > > diversified. As an example, this driver has a residue Calculation
> > > > whereas the other driver (VDMA) is not applicable and the way interrupts
> are handled is completely different.
> > > > Briefly, they are two complete different IPs with a different
> > > > register set and descriptor format. Eventually, it became too
> > > > complex To manage the common driver as the code became messy with
> lot of conditions around.
> > > > Mainly the validation process is a big concern, as every change In
> > > > the IP compels to test all the complete features of both IPs.  So,
> > > > we got convinced to the approach of separating the drivers to
> > > > overcome this and it comes with Few addition lines of common code.
> > >
> > > No it is not that hard, bunch of people already do that.
> > >
> > > You need is a smart probe or perhaps invoke IP specfic method to
> > > initialize dma controller.
> > >
> > > In above case no one forces you to register status callback for
> > > both, you can do based on the controller probed...
> > >
> > > I am sorry but validation is not a strong point here. I have a
> > > driver which manages bunch of different generations. Reuse helps in
> > > having lesser code and bug fixes across generations easily..
> > >
> > > We cant have two drivers pretty much doing same thing in kernel
> > >
> > > Please fix this and come back
> >
> > Sorry for delayed response. I was out sick.
> > I had internal discussions with my team. Both DMA's target for completely
> different use cases, have different register sets and different descriptor formats.
> Interrupt processing is also different. Each of these IPs undergo frequent
> changes and enhancements. Having a single driver means for any small change
> in any of the IPs the testing has to happen across a whole lot of test cases which
> looks inefficient.
> > Thinking futuristically where we don't know in which way the IP changes can
> happen, I feel it is always good to have separate drivers. We can't predict the
> HW changes and since the DMAs are targeted for different use cases, we may
> end up in tricky situations if we have a single driver.
> > I do agree that code reuse is generally efficient. But for our case we are not
> dealing with generations of same IP, but completely different IPs. Though there
> are some similarities between them, I feel the differences are many.
> > On v7 of this series, I had put the same observation to which you seem to have
> agreed. That is the reason I went ahead with other comments. At this point it is
> definitely really hard for me to merge.
> 
> Lot of this is unreadable and I am not going to add effort on this
> 
> > However, if you still insist and see a lot of value in having a single driver, I will
> see what I can do. As I said, it will be some work and in long term it will be a
> maintenance issue for Xilinx and our customers.
> 
> Yes please, I know you will have arguments for it but we know reuse helps,
> reduces bugs. Yes validation is increased but that is how drivers are written and
> maintained, and pls automate that!

Sure will come back with a patch by merging the two drivers soon.

Regards,
Kedar.

> 
> --
> ~Vinod
--
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