[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170207164207.GI19244@localhost>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:12:08 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To: Anup Patel <anup.patel@...adcom.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
Jon Mason <jonmason@...adcom.com>,
Rob Rice <rob.rice@...adcom.com>,
BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
"dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
Device Tree <devicetree@...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>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] async_tx: Handle DMA devices having support for
fewer PQ coefficients
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:32:15PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Anup Patel <anup.patel@...adcom.com> wrote:
> >> The DMAENGINE framework assumes that if PQ offload is supported by a
> >> DMA device then all 256 PQ coefficients are supported. This assumption
> >> does not hold anymore because we now have BCM-SBA-RAID offload engine
> >> which supports PQ offload with limited number of PQ coefficients.
> >>
> >> This patch extends async_tx APIs to handle DMA devices with support
> >> for fewer PQ coefficients.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@...adcom.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>
> >
> > I don't like this approach. Define an interface for md to query the
> > offload engine once at the beginning of time. We should not be adding
> > any new extensions to async_tx.
>
> Even if we do capability checks in Linux MD, we still need a way
> for DMAENGINE drivers to advertise number of PQ coefficients
> handled by the HW.
If the question is only for advertising caps, then why not do as done
for dma_get_slave_caps(). you can add dma_get_pq_caps() so that clients (md)
in this case would know the HW capability.
> I agree capability checks should be done once in Linux MD but I don't
> see why this has to be part of BCM-SBA-RAID driver patches. We need
> separate patchsets to address limitations of async_tx framework.
>
> Regards,
> Anup
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists