[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180524142736.2ef157fe@bbrezillon>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 14:27:36 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, computersforpeace@...il.com,
marek.vasut@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
thierry.reding@...il.com, mturquette@...libre.com,
sboyd@...nel.org, dev@...xeye.de, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com,
richard@....at, marcel@...wiler.com, krzk@...nel.org,
digetx@...il.com, benjamin.lindqvist@...ian.se,
jonathanh@...dia.com, pdeschrijver@...dia.com, pgaikwad@...dia.com,
mirza.krak@...il.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/5] mtd: rawnand: add NVIDIA Tegra NAND Flash
controller driver
On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:09:53 +0200
Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 10:56, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018 10:46:27 +0200
> > Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Boris,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the initial review! One small question below:
> >>
> >> On 23.05.2018 16:18, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> > Hi Stefan,
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:07:06 +0200
> >> > Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> wrote:
> >> >> +
> >> >> +struct tegra_nand {
> >> >> + void __iomem *regs;
> >> >> + struct clk *clk;
> >> >> + struct gpio_desc *wp_gpio;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + struct nand_chip chip;
> >> >> + struct device *dev;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + struct completion command_complete;
> >> >> + struct completion dma_complete;
> >> >> + bool last_read_error;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + dma_addr_t data_dma;
> >> >> + void *data_buf;
> >> >> + dma_addr_t oob_dma;
> >> >> + void *oob_buf;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + int cur_chip;
> >> >> +};
> >> >
> >> > This struct should be split in 2 structures: one representing the NAND
> >> > controller and one representing the NAND chip:
> >> >
> >> > struct tegra_nand_controller {
> >> > struct nand_hw_control base;
> >> > void __iomem *regs;
> >> > struct clk *clk;
> >> > struct device *dev;
> >> > struct completion command_complete;
> >> > struct completion dma_complete;
> >> > bool last_read_error;
> >> > int cur_chip;
> >> > };
> >> >
> >> > struct tegra_nand {
> >> > struct nand_chip base;
> >> > dma_addr_t data_dma;
> >> > void *data_buf;
> >> > dma_addr_t oob_dma;
> >> > void *oob_buf;
> >> > };
> >>
> >> Is there a particular reason why you would leave DMA buffers in the chip
> >> structure? It seems that is more a controller thing...
> >
> > The size of those buffers is likely to be device dependent, so if you
> > have several NANDs connected to the controller, you'll either have to
> > have one buffer at the controller level which is max(all-chip-buf-size)
> > or a buffer per device.
> >
> > Also, do you really need these buffers? The core already provide some
> > which are suitable for DMA (chip->oob_poi and chip->data_buf).
> >
>
> Good question, I am not sure, that was existing code.
>
> Are you sure data_buf it is DMA capable?
>
> nand_scan_tail allocates with kmalloc:
>
> chip->data_buf = kmalloc(mtd->writesize + mtd->oobsize, GFP_KERNEL);
Also, you might want to set the NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER flag in
chip->options, so that the core always pass DMA-able buffers to your
->read/write_page[_raw] function.
[1]https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17-rc6/source/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h#L202
Powered by blists - more mailing lists