Re: [PATCH v4 11/15] dmaengine: ti: New driver for K3 UDMA - split#3: alloc/free chan_resources
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Date: 2019-11-11 06:06:50
Also in:
dmaengine, linux-devicetree, lkml
On 01-11-19, 10:41, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Split patch for review containing: channel rsource allocation and free
s/rsource/resource
+static int udma_tisci_tx_channel_config(struct udma_chan *uc)
+{
+ struct udma_dev *ud = uc->ud;
+ struct udma_tisci_rm *tisci_rm = &ud->tisci_rm;
+ const struct ti_sci_rm_udmap_ops *tisci_ops = tisci_rm->tisci_udmap_ops;
+ struct udma_tchan *tchan = uc->tchan;
+ int tc_ring = k3_ringacc_get_ring_id(tchan->tc_ring);
+ struct ti_sci_msg_rm_udmap_tx_ch_cfg req_tx = { 0 };
+ u32 mode, fetch_size;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (uc->pkt_mode) {
+ mode = TI_SCI_RM_UDMAP_CHAN_TYPE_PKT_PBRR;
+ fetch_size = cppi5_hdesc_calc_size(uc->needs_epib, uc->psd_size,
+ 0);
+ } else {
+ mode = TI_SCI_RM_UDMAP_CHAN_TYPE_3RDP_PBRR;
+ fetch_size = sizeof(struct cppi5_desc_hdr_t);
+ }
+
+ req_tx.valid_params =
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_PAUSE_ON_ERR_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_TX_FILT_EINFO_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_TX_FILT_PSWORDS_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_CHAN_TYPE_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_TX_SUPR_TDPKT_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_FETCH_SIZE_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_CQ_QNUM_VALID;bunch of these are repeat, you can define a COMMON_VALID_PARAMS and use that + specific ones..
+ + req_tx.nav_id = tisci_rm->tisci_dev_id; + req_tx.index = tchan->id; + req_tx.tx_pause_on_err = 0; + req_tx.tx_filt_einfo = 0; + req_tx.tx_filt_pswords = 0;
i think initialization to 0 is superfluous
+ req_tx.tx_chan_type = mode;
+ req_tx.tx_supr_tdpkt = uc->notdpkt;
+ req_tx.tx_fetch_size = fetch_size >> 2;
+ req_tx.txcq_qnum = tc_ring;
+ if (uc->ep_type == PSIL_EP_PDMA_XY) {
+ /* wait for peer to complete the teardown for PDMAs */
+ req_tx.valid_params |=
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_TX_TDTYPE_VALID;
+ req_tx.tx_tdtype = 1;
+ }
+
+ ret = tisci_ops->tx_ch_cfg(tisci_rm->tisci, &req_tx);
+ if (ret)
+ dev_err(ud->dev, "tchan%d cfg failed %d\n", tchan->id, ret);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int udma_tisci_rx_channel_config(struct udma_chan *uc)
+{
+ struct udma_dev *ud = uc->ud;
+ struct udma_tisci_rm *tisci_rm = &ud->tisci_rm;
+ const struct ti_sci_rm_udmap_ops *tisci_ops = tisci_rm->tisci_udmap_ops;
+ struct udma_rchan *rchan = uc->rchan;
+ int fd_ring = k3_ringacc_get_ring_id(rchan->fd_ring);
+ int rx_ring = k3_ringacc_get_ring_id(rchan->r_ring);
+ struct ti_sci_msg_rm_udmap_rx_ch_cfg req_rx = { 0 };
+ struct ti_sci_msg_rm_udmap_flow_cfg flow_req = { 0 };
+ u32 mode, fetch_size;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (uc->pkt_mode) {
+ mode = TI_SCI_RM_UDMAP_CHAN_TYPE_PKT_PBRR;
+ fetch_size = cppi5_hdesc_calc_size(uc->needs_epib,
+ uc->psd_size, 0);
+ } else {
+ mode = TI_SCI_RM_UDMAP_CHAN_TYPE_3RDP_PBRR;
+ fetch_size = sizeof(struct cppi5_desc_hdr_t);
+ }
+
+ req_rx.valid_params =
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_PAUSE_ON_ERR_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_FETCH_SIZE_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_CQ_QNUM_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_CHAN_TYPE_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_RX_IGNORE_SHORT_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_RX_IGNORE_LONG_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_RX_FLOWID_START_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_CH_RX_FLOWID_CNT_VALID;
+
+ req_rx.nav_id = tisci_rm->tisci_dev_id;
+ req_rx.index = rchan->id;
+ req_rx.rx_fetch_size = fetch_size >> 2;
+ req_rx.rxcq_qnum = rx_ring;
+ req_rx.rx_pause_on_err = 0;
+ req_rx.rx_chan_type = mode;
+ req_rx.rx_ignore_short = 0;
+ req_rx.rx_ignore_long = 0;
+ req_rx.flowid_start = 0;
+ req_rx.flowid_cnt = 0;
+
+ ret = tisci_ops->rx_ch_cfg(tisci_rm->tisci, &req_rx);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(ud->dev, "rchan%d cfg failed %d\n", rchan->id, ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ flow_req.valid_params =
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_EINFO_PRESENT_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_PSINFO_PRESENT_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_ERROR_HANDLING_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_DESC_TYPE_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_DEST_QNUM_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_SRC_TAG_HI_SEL_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_SRC_TAG_LO_SEL_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_DEST_TAG_HI_SEL_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_DEST_TAG_LO_SEL_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_FDQ0_SZ0_QNUM_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_FDQ1_QNUM_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_FDQ2_QNUM_VALID |
+ TI_SCI_MSG_VALUE_RM_UDMAP_FLOW_FDQ3_QNUM_VALID;
+
+ flow_req.nav_id = tisci_rm->tisci_dev_id;
+ flow_req.flow_index = rchan->id;
+
+ if (uc->needs_epib)
+ flow_req.rx_einfo_present = 1;
+ else
+ flow_req.rx_einfo_present = 0;
+ if (uc->psd_size)
+ flow_req.rx_psinfo_present = 1;
+ else
+ flow_req.rx_psinfo_present = 0;
+ flow_req.rx_error_handling = 1;
+ flow_req.rx_desc_type = 0;
+ flow_req.rx_dest_qnum = rx_ring;
+ flow_req.rx_src_tag_hi_sel = 2;
+ flow_req.rx_src_tag_lo_sel = 4;
+ flow_req.rx_dest_tag_hi_sel = 5;
+ flow_req.rx_dest_tag_lo_sel = 4;can we get rid of magic numbers here and elsewhere, or at least comment on what these mean..
+static int udma_alloc_chan_resources(struct dma_chan *chan)
+{
+ struct udma_chan *uc = to_udma_chan(chan);
+ struct udma_dev *ud = to_udma_dev(chan->device);
+ const struct udma_match_data *match_data = ud->match_data;
+ struct k3_ring *irq_ring;
+ u32 irq_udma_idx;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (uc->pkt_mode || uc->dir == DMA_MEM_TO_MEM) {
+ uc->use_dma_pool = true;
+ /* in case of MEM_TO_MEM we have maximum of two TRs */
+ if (uc->dir == DMA_MEM_TO_MEM) {
+ uc->hdesc_size = cppi5_trdesc_calc_size(
+ sizeof(struct cppi5_tr_type15_t), 2);
+ uc->pkt_mode = false;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (uc->use_dma_pool) {
+ uc->hdesc_pool = dma_pool_create(uc->name, ud->ddev.dev,
+ uc->hdesc_size, ud->desc_align,
+ 0);
+ if (!uc->hdesc_pool) {
+ dev_err(ud->ddev.dev,
+ "Descriptor pool allocation failed\n");
+ uc->use_dma_pool = false;
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure that the completion is in a known state:
+ * No teardown, the channel is idle
+ */
+ reinit_completion(&uc->teardown_completed);
+ complete_all(&uc->teardown_completed);should we not complete first and then do reinit to bring a clean state?
+ uc->state = UDMA_CHAN_IS_IDLE;
+
+ switch (uc->dir) {
+ case DMA_MEM_TO_MEM:can you explain why a allocation should be channel dependent, shouldn't these things be done in prep_ calls? I looked ahead and checked the prep_ calls and we can use any direction so this somehow doesn't make sense! -- ~Vinod _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel