[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3490a279-3584-161b-cbd4-c7ef2b5288e1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 00:45:49 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>,
"thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Mantravadi Karthik <mkarthik@...dia.com>,
Shardar Mohammed <smohammed@...dia.com>,
Timo Alho <talho@...dia.com>
Cc: "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 3/5] i2c: tegra: Add DMA support
02.02.2019 0:36, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>
>>>
>>>> rx_chan = dma_request_slave_channel_reason(i2c_dev->dev, "rx");
>>>> if (IS_ERR(rx_chan))
>>>> return PTR_ERR(rx_chan);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dma_chan = dma_request_slave_channel_reason(i2c_dev->dev, "tx");
>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(dma_chan)) {
>>>>> + err = PTR_ERR(dma_chan);
>>>>> + goto error;
>>>>
>>>> It's a good practice to release resources in opposite order to the allocation. Hence better to write this as:
>>>>
>>>> goto err_release_rx;
>>>>
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + i2c_dev->tx_dma_chan = dma_chan;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dma_buf = dma_alloc_coherent(i2c_dev->dev,
>>>>> + i2c_dev->dma_buf_size, &dma_phys,
>>>>> + GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!dma_buf) {
>>>>> + dev_err(i2c_dev->dev, "failed to allocate the DMA buffer\n");
>>>>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>>>>> + goto error;
>>>>
>>>> goto err_release_tx;
>>>>
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + i2c_dev->dma_buf = dma_buf;
>>>>> + i2c_dev->dma_phys = dma_phys;
>>
>> i2c_dev->rx_dma_chan = rx_chan;
>>>> i2c_dev->tx_dma_chan = tx_chan;
>>>>
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +error:
>>>>> + if (i2c_dev->tx_dma_chan)
>>>>> + dma_release_channel(i2c_dev->tx_dma_chan);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (i2c_dev->rx_dma_chan)
>>>>> + dma_release_channel(i2c_dev->rx_dma_chan);
>>>>
>>>> error_release_tx:
>>>> dma_release_channel(tx_chan);
>>>> error_release_rx:
>>>> dma_release_channel(rx_chan);
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return err;
>>>
>>> I am releasing resources in reverse order to allocation.
>>> Trying for rx allocation followed by tx allocation During release
>>> releasing tx and then rx.
>>> In case if tx allocation fails, doesn’t go thru release. If rx or buf
>>> allocation fails, releases tx first and then rx
>>>
>>
>>
>> Okay. Anyway it's a good-n-common practice to write it in the way I'm suggesting.
>>
>> And please set rx_chan and tx_chan after dma_buf allocation as I'm suggesting because you current variant will crash kernel since if dma_buf allocation fails, both rx and tx channels will be released and you're not setting them to NULL in that case.
>
> OK, my wrong assumption. Thought dma_release_channel will NULL chan after its freed
> Will update and send V10
>
There is no need to rush, you may wait at least for the testing feedback for now. Also maybe Thierry or somebody else will have something to say as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists