[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240226153014.GG8422@thinkpad>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:00:14 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@...il.com>,
Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
mhi@...ts.linux.dev, Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] PCI: dwc: Skip finding eDMA channels count if
glue drivers have passed them
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 03:53:20PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 05:07:27PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > In the case of Hyper DMA (HDMA) present in DWC controllers, there is no way
> > the drivers can auto detect the number of read/write channels as like its
> > predecessor embedded DMA (eDMA). So the glue drivers making use of HDMA
> > have to pass the channels count during probe.
> >
> > To accommodate that, let's skip finding the channels if the channels count
> > were already passed by glue drivers. If the channels count passed were
> > wrong in any form, then the existing sanity check will catch it.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> > index 193fcd86cf93..ce273c3c5421 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> > @@ -927,13 +927,15 @@ static int dw_pcie_edma_find_channels(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> > {
> > u32 val;
> >
> > - if (pci->edma.mf == EDMA_MF_EDMA_LEGACY)
> > - val = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, PCIE_DMA_VIEWPORT_BASE + PCIE_DMA_CTRL);
> > - else
> > - val = dw_pcie_readl_dma(pci, PCIE_DMA_CTRL);
> > -
> > - pci->edma.ll_wr_cnt = FIELD_GET(PCIE_DMA_NUM_WR_CHAN, val);
> > - pci->edma.ll_rd_cnt = FIELD_GET(PCIE_DMA_NUM_RD_CHAN, val);
>
> > + if (!pci->edma.ll_wr_cnt || !pci->edma.ll_rd_cnt) {
>
> Are you sure that the partly initialized case should be considered as
> a request for the auto-detection? IMO &&-ing here and letting the
> sanity check to fail further would be more correct since thus the
> developer would know about improper initialized data.
>
We already have the check below. So the partly initialized case will fail
anyway.
- Mani
> -Serge(y)
>
> > + if (pci->edma.mf == EDMA_MF_EDMA_LEGACY)
> > + val = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, PCIE_DMA_VIEWPORT_BASE + PCIE_DMA_CTRL);
> > + else
> > + val = dw_pcie_readl_dma(pci, PCIE_DMA_CTRL);
> > +
> > + pci->edma.ll_wr_cnt = FIELD_GET(PCIE_DMA_NUM_WR_CHAN, val);
> > + pci->edma.ll_rd_cnt = FIELD_GET(PCIE_DMA_NUM_RD_CHAN, val);
> > + }
> >
> > /* Sanity check the channels count if the mapping was incorrect */
> > if (!pci->edma.ll_wr_cnt || pci->edma.ll_wr_cnt > EDMA_MAX_WR_CH ||
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
Powered by blists - more mailing lists