On Montag, 4. September 2017 01:44:54 CEST Andr? Przywara wrote:

Hi,

On 03/09/17 23:40, Stefan Br?ns wrote:

quoted

To avoid introduction of a new compatible for each small SoC/DMA
controller
variation, move the definition of the channel count to the devicetree.

The number of vchans is no longer explicit, but limited by the highest
port/DMA request number. The result is a slight overallocation for SoCs
with a sparse port mapping.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Br?ns <redacted>
---

 drivers/dma/sun6i-dma.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/dma/sun6i-dma.c b/drivers/dma/sun6i-dma.c
index c69dadb853d2..bd4c2e4a759b 100644
--- a/drivers/dma/sun6i-dma.c
+++ b/drivers/dma/sun6i-dma.c

@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@

 #define DMA_STAT		0x30

+/* Offset between DMA_IRQ_EN and DMA_IRQ_STAT limits number of channels

*/
+#define DMA_MAX_CHANNELS	(DMA_IRQ_CHAN_NR * 0x10 / 4)
+

 /*
 
  * sun8i specific registers
  */

@@ -65,7 +68,8 @@

 #define DMA_CHAN_LLI_ADDR	0x08
 
 #define DMA_CHAN_CUR_CFG	0x0c

-#define DMA_CHAN_CFG_SRC_DRQ(x)		((x) & 0x1f)
+#define DMA_CHAN_MAX_DRQ		0x1f
+#define DMA_CHAN_CFG_SRC_DRQ(x)		((x) & DMA_CHAN_MAX_DRQ)

 #define DMA_CHAN_CFG_SRC_IO_MODE	BIT(5)
 #define DMA_CHAN_CFG_SRC_LINEAR_MODE	(0 << 5)
 #define DMA_CHAN_CFG_SRC_BURST_A31(x)	(((x) & 0x3) << 7)

@@ -1173,6 +1177,35 @@ static int sun6i_dma_probe(struct platform_device

*pdev)> 
 	sdc->num_vchans = sdc->cfg->nr_max_vchans;
 	sdc->max_request = sdc->cfg->nr_max_requests;

+	ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "dma-channels", &sdc->num_pchans);
+	if (ret && !sdc->num_pchans) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't get dma-channels.\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	if (sdc->num_pchans > DMA_MAX_CHANNELS) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Number of dma-channels out of range.\n");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "dma-requests", &sdc->max_request);
+	if (ret && !sdc->max_request) {
+		dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Missing dma-requests, using %u.\n",
+			 DMA_CHAN_MAX_DRQ);

Mmmh, is this mapping of "!sdc->max_request" -> DMA_CHAN_MAX_DRQ
implemented somewhere else? Or is it just missing here:
		sdc->max_request = DMA_CHAN_MAX_DRQ;

Well spotted, that assignment is actually missing.

With this line added, your comment for patch 8/10 should also be addressed 
(regarding the default value).
 

Otherwise this is looking good, thanks for picking up the DT property
approach!

Cheers,
Andre.

Kind regards,

Stefan

-- 
Stefan Br?ns  /  Bergstra?e 21  /  52062 Aachen
home: +49 241 53809034     mobile: +49 151 50412019