[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e441369-5c15-d711-1789-b55eadf33c8f@nod.at>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:39:47 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Frode Isaksen <fisaksen@...libre.com>,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mtd: spi-nor: Introduce bounce buffer to handle
vmalloc'd buffers
Vignesh,
Am 27.02.2017 um 13:08 schrieb Vignesh R:
> Filesystems like UBIFS may pass vmalloc'd buffers to SPI NOR layer which
> will end up in SPI layer. SPI core does try to handle such buffers (see
> spi_map_buf()) by doing vmalloc_to_page() and creating scatterlist. But,
> its known that this does not work well with VIVT/aliasing cache
> architectures.
> This also fails when buffers are addressed using LPAE (buffers in region
> higher than 32 bit addressable region), if DMA is 32bit only.
>
> Introduce bounce buffers support in SPI NOR framework to handle
> vmalloc'd buffers. Use a pre-allocated per flash bounce buffer equal to
> the sector size of the flash. Flash drivers can enable this feature by
> setting SNOR_F_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER flag.
> This would also enable SPI NOR drivers to safely use DMA in their
> read/write callbacks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> index 747645c74134..c241fefa5aff 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> #include <linux/math64.h>
> #include <linux/sizes.h>
> +#include <linux/mm.h>
>
> #include <linux/mtd/mtd.h>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> @@ -1205,11 +1206,21 @@ static int spi_nor_read(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, size_t len,
>
> while (len) {
> loff_t addr = from;
> + bool use_bb = false;
> + u_char *dst_buf = buf;
> + size_t buf_len = len;
>
> if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_S3AN_ADDR_DEFAULT)
> addr = spi_nor_s3an_addr_convert(nor, addr);
>
> - ret = nor->read(nor, addr, len, buf);
> + if (!virt_addr_valid(buf) && nor->bounce_buf) {
> + use_bb = true;
> + dst_buf = nor->bounce_buf;
> + if (len > mtd->erasesize)
> + buf_len = mtd->erasesize;
Doesn't this degrade the read operation to a short read?
Not sure whether this is harmless or not.
Cyrille?
> + }
> +
> + ret = nor->read(nor, from, buf_len, dst_buf);
> if (ret == 0) {
> /* We shouldn't see 0-length reads */
> ret = -EIO;
> @@ -1217,7 +1228,8 @@ static int spi_nor_read(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, size_t len,
> }
> if (ret < 0)
> goto read_err;
> -
> + if (use_bb)
> + memcpy(buf, dst_buf, ret);
> WARN_ON(ret > len);
> *retlen += ret;
> buf += ret;
> @@ -1329,6 +1341,7 @@ static int spi_nor_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len,
> return ret;
>
> for (i = 0; i < len; ) {
> + const u_char *src_buf = buf + i;
> ssize_t written;
> loff_t addr = to + i;
>
> @@ -1354,8 +1367,13 @@ static int spi_nor_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len,
> if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_S3AN_ADDR_DEFAULT)
> addr = spi_nor_s3an_addr_convert(nor, addr);
>
> + if (!virt_addr_valid(buf) && nor->bounce_buf) {
> + memcpy(nor->bounce_buf, buf + i, page_remain);
> + src_buf = nor->bounce_buf;
> + }
> +
> write_enable(nor);
> - ret = nor->write(nor, addr, page_remain, buf + i);
> + ret = nor->write(nor, addr, page_remain, src_buf);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto write_err;
> written = ret;
> @@ -1720,6 +1738,12 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name, enum read_mode mode)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER) {
> + nor->bounce_buf = devm_kmalloc(dev, mtd->erasesize, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!nor->bounce_buf)
> + dev_err(dev, "unable to allocated bounce buffer\n");
I think we should return here and not continue.
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists