[PATCH] dma: edma: add device_slave_caps() support

[Fernandes, Joel]

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 24, 2013, at 2:15 PM, "Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars at metafoo.de> wrote:

> On 07/24/2013 08:55 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On 07/24/2013 03:40 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>> On 07/24/2013 10:28 AM, Fernandes, Joel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 3:23 AM, "Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars at metafoo.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 07/24/2013 10:11 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/24/2013 03:03 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/23/2013 06:43 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Implement device_slave_caps(). EDMA has a limited number of slots.
>>>>>>>> Slave drivers such as omap_hsmmc will query the driver to make
>>>>>>>> sure they don't pass in more than these many scatter segments.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelf at ti.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> Vinod, or Dan- If this patch looks ok, can you please merge in for
>>>>>>>> -rc cycle? This patch is required to fix MMC support on AM33xx. This
>>>>>>>> patch is blocking 3 other patches which fix various MMC things. Thanks!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Notes:
>>>>>>>> (1) this approach is temporary and only for -rc cycle to fix MMC on
>>>>>>>> AM335x. It will be replace by the RFC series in future kernels:
>>>>>>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg260094.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> (2) Patch depends Vinod's patch at:
>>>>>>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1525112
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> drivers/dma/edma.c |    9 +++++++++
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/edma.c b/drivers/dma/edma.c
>>>>>>>> index 7222cbe..81d5429 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/dma/edma.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dma/edma.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -517,6 +517,14 @@ static void edma_issue_pending(struct dma_chan *chan)
>>>>>>>>    spin_unlock_irqrestore(&echan->vchan.lock, flags);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +static inline int edma_slave_caps(struct dma_chan *chan,
>>>>>>>> +    struct dma_slave_caps *caps)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +    caps->max_sg_nr = MAX_NR_SG;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hm, what about the other fields?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Other fields are unused, the max segment size is supposed to be
>>>>>> calculated "given" the address width and burst size. Since these
>>>>>> can't be provided to get_caps, I have left it out for now.
>>>>>> See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/6/464
>>>>> 
>>>>> The PL330 driver is similar in this regard, the maximum segment size also
>>>>> depends on address width and burst width. What I did for the get_slave_caps
>>>>> implementation is to set it to the minimum maximum size. E.g. in you case
>>>>> that should be SZ_64K - 1 (burstsize and addrwidth both set to 1).
>>>> 
>>>> So you're setting max to minimum maximum size? Isn't that like telling the driver that its segments can't be bigger than this... Unless I'm missing something..
>>> 
>>> Yes. This is a limitation of the current slave_caps API. The maximum needs
>>> to be the maximum for all possible configurations. A specific configuration
>>> may allow a larger maximum. So we maybe have to extend the API to be able to
>>> query the limits for a certain configuration. Not sure what the best way
>>> would be to do that, either adding a config parameter to get_slave_caps or
>>> to break it into two functions like you proposed one for the static
>>> capabilities and one for the sg limits.
>> 
>> I am OK with either approach as long as a decision can be made quickly
>> by maintainers. Right now lot of back and forth has happened and 3
>> different versions of the same thing have been posted since January.
>> Since this is such a trivial change, it doesn't make sense to spend so
>> much time on it IMO.... The sad part is though this change is trivial,
>> other drivers such as MMC are broken and cannot be enabled due to this.
>> We cannot afford to leave them broken.
> 
> Well this is a new API, so it is kind of expected that there is some back and forth and that there will be a few revisions.

Sure. Only thing bothered me is it is a few lines and is just API semantics, nothing functional really.

The MMC dt patches were posted but not applied. I said regression because the dt was agreed for -rc cycle but only thing missing is this trivial api stuff so possibly counting that as a regression fixes MMC altogether. 6 months for trivial change blocking an otherwise fully working driver is too much. I am speaking collectively for all of us, not me or anyone in particular. Anyway looks like MMC is not going anywhere till then.

> 
>> 
>> If Vinod is not available, can Dan please respond on how to proceed on
>> this? We really need this trivial change to go into this -rc cycle and
>> not delay it by another kernel release. Thank you.
> 
> This is not something you'd merge for rc3 or even later. If the MMC driver does not work without this I guess it never worked, so strictly speaking there is no regression and it is just a new feature.

Agreed.

-Joel

> 
> - Lars
>