[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yw1xbmwmzgj0.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 13:39:31 +0000
From: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
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>,
Thomas Gambier <thomas_gambier@...madesigns.com>
Subject: Re: Tearing down DMA transfer setup after DMA client has finished
Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr> writes:
> On 08/12/2016 13:44, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr> writes:
>>
>>> On 08/12/2016 13:20, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only problem we have is that nobody envisioned hardware where the
>>>> dma engine indicates completion slightly too soon. I suspect there's a
>>>> fifo or such somewhere, and the interrupt is triggered when the last
>>>> byte has been placed in the fifo rather than when it has been removed
>>>> which would have been more correct.
>>>
>>> As I (tried to) explain here:
>>> https://marc.info/?l=dmaengine&m=148007808418242&w=2
>>>
>>> A *read* MBUS agent raises its IRQ when it is safe for the memory
>>> to be overwritten (i.e. every byte has been pushed into the pipe).
>>>
>>> A *write* MBUS agent raises its IRQ when it is safe for another
>>> agent to read any one of the transferred bytes.
>>>
>>> The issue comes from the fact that, for a memory-to-device transfer,
>>> the system will receive the read agent's IRQ, but most devices
>>> (NFC, SATA) don't have an IRQ line to signal that their part of the
>>> operation is complete.
>>
>> SATA does, actually. Nevertheless, it's an unusual design.
>
> Thanks, I was mistaken about the SATA controller.
>
> On tango3 (and also tango4, I assume)
>
> IRQ 41 = Serial ATA #0
> IRQ 42 = Serial ATA DMA #0
> IRQ 54 = Serial ATA #1
> IRQ 55 = Serial ATA DMA #1
>
> But in the end, whether there is a device interrupt (SATA)
> or not (NFC), for a memory-to-device transfer, the DMA
> driver will get the read agent notification (which should
> be ignored) and the client driver should either spin until
> idle (NFC) or wait for its completion IRQ (SATA).
>
> Correct?
Yes, and when the client device is finished, the driver needs to signal
this to the dma driver so it can reuse the channel. It's this last
piece that's missing.
--
Måns Rullgård
Powered by blists - more mailing lists