[PATCH v10 2/2] dmaengine: Add Xilinx zynqmp dma engine driver support

[Vinod Koul]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 12:53:59PM +0530, Kedareswara rao Appana wrote:
> +config XILINX_ZYNQMP_DMA
> +	tristate "Xilinx ZynqMP DMA Engine"
> +	depends on (ARCH_ZYNQ || MICROBLAZE || ARM64)
> +	select DMA_ENGINE
> +	help
> +	  Enable support for Xilinx ZynqMP DMA controller.

Kconfig and makefile is sorted alphabetically, pls update this

> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> +#include <linux/dma/xilinx_dma.h>
> +#include <linux/dmaengine.h>
> +#include <linux/dmapool.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
> +#include <linux/of_dma.h>
> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h>

do you really need so many headers?

> +static inline void zynqmp_dma_writeq(struct zynqmp_dma_chan *chan, u32 reg,
> +				     u64 value)
> +{
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT)
> +	writeq(value, chan->regs + reg);
> +#else
> +	lo_hi_writeq(value, chan->regs + reg);
> +#endif

why do you need this? can you explain..

> +static inline bool zynqmp_dma_chan_is_idle(struct zynqmp_dma_chan *chan)
> +{
> +	return chan->idle;
> +

empty line not required


> +static void zynqmp_dma_desc_config_eod(struct zynqmp_dma_chan *chan, void *desc)

eod? 80 line?


> +	val = 0;
> +	if (chan->config.has_sg)
> +		val |= ZYNQMP_DMA_POINT_TYPE_SG;

why not val = and get rid of assign to 0 above

> +	writel(val, chan->regs + ZYNQMP_DMA_CTRL0);

okay why write 0 for no sg mode?

> +
> +	val = 0;
> +	if (chan->is_dmacoherent) {
> +		val |= ZYNQMP_DMA_AXCOHRNT;
> +		val = (val & ~ZYNQMP_DMA_AXCACHE) |
> +			(ZYNQMP_DMA_AXCACHE_VAL << ZYNQMP_DMA_AXCACHE_OFST);
> +	}
> +	writel(val, chan->regs + ZYNQMP_DMA_DSCR_ATTR);

same comments here too

> +	spin_lock_bh(&chan->lock);
> +	desc = list_first_entry(&chan->free_list, struct zynqmp_dma_desc_sw,
> +				 node);

how about:

	desc = list_first_entry(&chan->free_list,
			struct zynqmp_dma_desc_sw, node);

> +	chan->desc_free_cnt++;
> +	list_add_tail(&sdesc->node, &chan->free_list);
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(child, next, &sdesc->tx_list, node) {
> +		chan->desc_free_cnt++;
> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&child->tx_list);
> +		list_move_tail(&child->node, &chan->free_list);
> +	}
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sdesc->tx_list);

why are you initializing list in free?

> +static int zynqmp_dma_alloc_chan_resources(struct dma_chan *dchan)
> +{
> +	struct zynqmp_dma_chan *chan = to_chan(dchan);
> +	struct zynqmp_dma_desc_sw *desc;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	chan->sw_desc_pool = kzalloc(sizeof(*desc) * ZYNQMP_DMA_NUM_DESCS,
> +				     GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!chan->sw_desc_pool)
> +		return -ENOMEM;

empty line here pls

> +static enum dma_status zynqmp_dma_tx_status(struct dma_chan *dchan,
> +				      dma_cookie_t cookie,
> +				      struct dma_tx_state *txstate)
> +{
> +	return dma_cookie_status(dchan, cookie, txstate);

why do you need this wrapper, assign dma_cookie_status as your status
callback.

> +int zynqmp_dma_channel_set_config(struct dma_chan *dchan,
> +				  struct zynqmp_dma_config *cfg)
> +{
> +	struct zynqmp_dma_chan *chan = to_chan(dchan);
> +
> +	chan->config.ovrfetch = cfg->ovrfetch;
> +	chan->config.has_sg = cfg->has_sg;

is this HW capability? if so why would anyone not like to use it!

> +	chan->config.ratectrl = cfg->ratectrl;
> +	chan->config.src_issue = cfg->src_issue;
> +	chan->config.src_burst_len = cfg->src_burst_len;
> +	chan->config.dst_burst_len = cfg->dst_burst_len;

can you describe these parameters?

How would a client know how to configure them?
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(zynqmp_dma_channel_set_config);

Not _GPL?

> +	chan->bus_width = ZYNQMP_DMA_BUS_WIDTH_64;
> +	chan->config.src_issue = ZYNQMP_DMA_SRC_ISSUE_RST_VAL;
> +	chan->config.dst_burst_len = ZYNQMP_DMA_AWLEN_RST_VAL;
> +	chan->config.src_burst_len = ZYNQMP_DMA_ARLEN_RST_VAL;
> +	err = of_property_read_u32(node, "xlnx,bus-width", &chan->bus_width);
> +	if ((err < 0) && ((chan->bus_width != ZYNQMP_DMA_BUS_WIDTH_64) ||
> +			  (chan->bus_width != ZYNQMP_DMA_BUS_WIDTH_128))) {
> +		dev_err(zdev->dev, "invalid bus-width value");
> +		return err;
> +	}
> +
> +	chan->bus_width = chan->bus_width / 8;

?

why not update it once?

-- 
~Vinod