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-arm-kernel, lkml
On 01-11-19, 10:41, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Split patch for review containing: channel rsource allocation and free
s/rsource/resource
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+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..
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ + 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
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ 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..
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+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?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ 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