[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0fe0984f-7fa4-5885-47b9-db4fe6d5cd7c@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:50:09 +0200
From: Stefan Roese <sr@...x.de>
To: Olivier Dautricourt <olivier.dautricourt@...lia.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] dmaengine: altera-msgdma: add OF support
On 07.06.21 12:45, Olivier Dautricourt wrote:
> The 06/07/2021 15:38, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On 07-06-21, 10:28, Olivier Dautricourt wrote:
>>> The 06/07/2021 12:29, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>> On 18-05-21, 15:25, Olivier Dautricourt wrote:
>>>>> This driver had no device tree support.
>>>>>
>>>>> - add compatible field "altr,socfpga-msgdma"
>>>>> - define msgdma_of_xlate, with no argument
>>>>> - register dma controller with of_dma_controller_register
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese <sr@...x.de>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Olivier Dautricourt <olivier.dautricourt@...lia.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Notes:
>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>> none
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes from v2 to v3:
>>>>> Removed CONFIG_OF #ifdef's and use if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF))
>>>>> only once.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes from v3 to v4
>>>>> Reintroduce #ifdef CONFIG_OF for msgdma_match
>>>>> as it produces a unused variable warning
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes from v4 to v5
>>>>> - As per Rob's comments on patch 1/2:
>>>>> change compatible field from altr,msgdma to
>>>>> altr,socfpga-msgdma.
>>>>> - change commit title to fit previous commits naming
>>>>> - As per Vinod's comments:
>>>>> - use dma_get_slave_channel instead of dma_get_any_slave_channel which
>>>>> makes more sense.
>>>>> - remove if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)) for of_dma_controller_register
>>>>> as it is taken care by the core
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/dma/altera-msgdma.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/altera-msgdma.c b/drivers/dma/altera-msgdma.c
>>>>> index 9a841ce5f0c5..acf0990d73ae 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/dma/altera-msgdma.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dma/altera-msgdma.c
>>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/module.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/of_dma.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include "dmaengine.h"
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -784,6 +785,14 @@ static int request_and_map(struct platform_device *pdev, const char *name,
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static struct dma_chan *msgdma_of_xlate(struct of_phandle_args *dma_spec,
>>>>> + struct of_dma *ofdma)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct msgdma_device *d = ofdma->of_dma_data;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return dma_get_slave_channel(&d->dmachan);
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> Why not use of_dma_simple_xlate() instead?
>>> I guess i could, but i don't think i need to define a filter function,
>>> also there is only one possible channel.
>>
>> Yeah no point in adding filter_fn. I guess we need
>> of_dma_xlate_by_chan_id() here, I guess you are specifying channel in dts
>> right? If not above would be okay
> Yes i am, but as this controller has only one channel I was thinking not to fail
> if something other than chan_id == 0 is specified. But it may not be right,
> I could also remove the argument in the device tree but dma controller
> schema expects at least one argument.
> Now i think maybe it makes more sense to use of_dma_xlate_by_chan_id and
> expect chan_id == 0 in the dt.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> /**
>>>>> * msgdma_probe - Driver probe function
>>>>> * @pdev: Pointer to the platform_device structure
>>>>> @@ -888,6 +897,13 @@ static int msgdma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>> goto fail;
>>>>>
>>>>> + ret = of_dma_controller_register(pdev->dev.of_node,
>>>>> + msgdma_of_xlate, mdev);
>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register dma controller");
>>>>> + goto fail;
>>>>
>>>> Should this be treated as an error.. the probe will be invoked on non of
>>>> systems too..
>>> Ok, i'm a bit confused,
>>> in v4 those lines were enclosed with 'if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)) { }'
>>> when you said to me that it was already taken care by the core i though
>>> that of_dma_controller_register will return 0 on non-of systems.
>>> Now i can add back IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) or discard the ret value.
>>
>> Well including in CONFIG_OF sounded protection from compilation which is
>> not required.
>>
>> Now the issue is that you maybe running on a system which may or maynot
>> have DT and even on DT based systems your device may not be DT one..
> good catch, i forgot this use-case ..
>>
>> So i think the return should be handled here if DT device is not present
>> and warn that and continue for not DT modes.. Also someone who has this
>> non DT device should test the changes
> I can do that.
>
> I think Stefan used this driver on non-DT platform but he said
> that he has no access to the hardware anymore.
Correct. Unfortunately I can't do any tests.
Thanks,
Stefan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists