On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:23:32PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> >>> why should this be hard coded in kernel and not queried from something like
> >>> DT? This case seems to be hardware property
> >>
> >> Originally, I did have this in DT, however, the Tegra maintainers prefer
> >> this and this is consistent with the other Tegra DMA driver (see
> >> driver/dma/tegra20-apb-dma.c) [0].
> >
> > But this creates a problem when you have next generation of controller with
> > different channel count!
> > How do we solve then?
>
> Same way we solve this for the tegra20-apb-dma driver by having
> different chip data per SoC in the driver ...
>
> 1259 /* Tegra20 specific DMA controller information */
> 1260 static const struct tegra_dma_chip_data tegra20_dma_chip_data = {
> 1261 .nr_channels = 16,
> 1262 .channel_reg_size = 0x20,
> 1263 .max_dma_count = 1024UL * 64,
> 1264 .support_channel_pause = false,
> 1265 .support_separate_wcount_reg = false,
> 1266 };
> 1267
> 1268 /* Tegra30 specific DMA controller information */
> 1269 static const struct tegra_dma_chip_data tegra30_dma_chip_data = {
> 1270 .nr_channels = 32,
> 1271 .channel_reg_size = 0x20,
> 1272 .max_dma_count = 1024UL * 64,
> 1273 .support_channel_pause = false,
> 1274 .support_separate_wcount_reg = false,
> 1275 };
> 1276
> 1277 /* Tegra114 specific DMA controller information */
> 1278 static const struct tegra_dma_chip_data tegra114_dma_chip_data = {
> 1279 .nr_channels = 32,
> 1280 .channel_reg_size = 0x20,
> 1281 .max_dma_count = 1024UL * 64,
> 1282 .support_channel_pause = true,
> 1283 .support_separate_wcount_reg = false,
> 1284 };
> 1285
> 1286 /* Tegra148 specific DMA controller information */
> 1287 static const struct tegra_dma_chip_data tegra148_dma_chip_data = {
> 1288 .nr_channels = 32,
> 1289 .channel_reg_size = 0x40,
> 1290 .max_dma_count = 1024UL * 64,
> 1291 .support_channel_pause = true,
> 1292 .support_separate_wcount_reg = true,
> 1293 };
>
> You may still say this should be in the DT, but the Tegra maintainers
> prefer this data in the driver.
Okay I don't see a a rationale behind this not being in DT, Stephan?
>
> >>>> + dma_cap_set(DMA_SLAVE, tdma->dma_dev.cap_mask);
> >>>> + dma_cap_set(DMA_PRIVATE, tdma->dma_dev.cap_mask);
> >>>> + dma_cap_set(DMA_CYCLIC, tdma->dma_dev.cap_mask);
> >>>
> >>> I think you should not set DMA_SLAVE, do you need caps to be exported. I
> >>> think that should be exported for cyclic too, let me know if that was the
> >>> issue?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why should I not be setting DMA_SLAVE? Should I not be calling
> >> dma_get_any_slave_channel() in the xlate?
> >>
> >> I think that I do want to set DMA_CYCLIC as well to ensure that we check
> >> that the device->device_prep_dma_cyclic() function pointer is populated
> >> when registering the DMA controller.
> >
> > Only setting DMA_CYCLIC should do, if you see any issues around that please
> > get back, we cna fix those :)
>
> It did not work for me because dma_get_any_slave_channel() wants a DMA
> device with the DMA_SLAVE bit capability set. So if I remove this above,
> then requesting the channel fails via dma_get_any_slave_channel() fails.
> Is there something I don't understand here?
You should use dma_request_channel() we cleaned up the APIs and recommend to
use dma_request_channel() for slave usages. See Documentation update in
a8135d0d79e9: (dmaengine: core: Introduce new, universal API to request a
channel)
Thanks
--
~Vinod
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
