[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161125141708.GM14217@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 14:17:08 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>, Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Mark Brown <broonie@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jon Mason <jon.mason@...el.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Tearing down DMA transfer setup after DMA client has finished
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:03:20PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:50:35PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk> writes:
> >> > It would be unfair to augment the API and add the burden on everyone
> >> > for the new API when 99.999% of the world doesn't require it.
> >>
> >> I don't think making this particular dma driver wait for the descriptor
> >> callback to return before reusing a channel quite amounts to a horrid
> >> hack. It certainly wouldn't burden anyone other than the poor drivers
> >> for devices connected to it, all of which are specific to Sigma AFAIK.
> >
> > Except when you stop to think that delaying in a tasklet is exactly
> > the same as randomly delaying in an interrupt handler - the tasklet
> > runs on the return path back to the parent context of an interrupt
> > handler. Even if you sleep in the tasklet, you're sleeping on behalf
> > of the currently executing thread - if it's a RT thread, you effectively
> > destroy the RT-ness of the thread. Let's hope no one cares about RT
> > performance on that hardware...
>
> That's why I suggested to do this only if the needed delay is known to
> be no more than a few bus cycles. The completion callback is currently
> the only post-transfer interaction we have between the dma and device
> drivers. To handle an arbitrarily long delay, some new interface will
> be required.
And now we're back at the point I made a few emails ago about undue
burden which is just about quoted above...
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists