[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161208103730.GB6408@localhost>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:07:30 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
Cc: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>,
Thibaud Cornic <thibaud_cornic@...madesigns.com>
Subject: Re: Tearing down DMA transfer setup after DMA client has finished
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 04:44:55PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> writes:
> >>
> >> What you're proposing, Vinod, is to make a channel exclusive
> >> to a driver, as long as the driver has not explicitly released
> >> the channel, via dma_release_channel(), right?
> >
> > Precisely, but yes the downside of that is concurrent access are
> > limited, but am not sure if driver implements virtual channels and
> > allows that..
>
> My driver implements virtual channels. The problem is that the physical
> dma channels signal completion slightly too soon, at least with
> mem-to-device transfers. Apparently we need to keep the sbox routing
> until the peripheral indicates that it has actually received all the
> data.
So do we need concurrent accesses by all clients.
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists