On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:52:14 PST (-0800), zong.li@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 8:06 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07-02-22, 14:30, Zong Li wrote:
> It currently assumes that there are always four channels, it would
> cause the error if there is actually less than four channels. Change
> that by getting number of channel from device tree.
>
> For backwards-compatibility, it uses the default value (i.e. 4) when
> there is no 'dma-channels' information in dts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zong Li <zong.li@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.h | 8 ++------
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.c b/drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.c
> index f12606aeff87..2ae10b61dfa1 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.c
> @@ -482,9 +482,7 @@ static void sf_pdma_setup_chans(struct sf_pdma *pdma)
> static int sf_pdma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct sf_pdma *pdma;
> - struct sf_pdma_chan *chan;
> struct resource *res;
> - int len, chans;
> int ret;
> const enum dma_slave_buswidth widths =
> DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_1_BYTE | DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_2_BYTES |
> @@ -492,13 +490,21 @@ static int sf_pdma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_16_BYTES | DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_32_BYTES |
> DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_64_BYTES;
>
> - chans = PDMA_NR_CH;
> - len = sizeof(*pdma) + sizeof(*chan) * chans;
> - pdma = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, len, GFP_KERNEL);
> + pdma = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pdma), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!pdma)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - pdma->n_chans = chans;
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "dma-channels",
> + &pdma->n_chans);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_notice(&pdev->dev, "set number of channels to default value: 4\n");
This is useful for only debug i think, so dev_dbg perhaps
Thanks for your suggestion, let me change it in the next version.
Not sure if I'm missing something, but I don't see a v6. I'm going to
assume that one will be sent, but the suggested changes look minor
enough so
Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
LMK if you guys were expecting this to go in via the RISC-V tree,
otherwise I'll assume this aimed at the dmaengine tree. Probably best to keep
all three together, so feel free to take the DTS updates as well -- having some
shared tag never hurts, but the DTs don't move that much so any conflicts
should be straight-forward to just fix at merge time.
Thanks!
> + pdma->n_chans = PDMA_MAX_NR_CH;
> + }
> +
> + if (pdma->n_chans > PDMA_MAX_NR_CH) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "the number of channels exceeds the maximum\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> pdma->membase = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> @@ -556,7 +562,7 @@ static int sf_pdma_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct sf_pdma_chan *ch;
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < PDMA_NR_CH; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < pdma->n_chans; i++) {
> ch = &pdma->chans[i];
>
> devm_free_irq(&pdev->dev, ch->txirq, ch);
> @@ -574,6 +580,7 @@ static int sf_pdma_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> static const struct of_device_id sf_pdma_dt_ids[] = {
> { .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-pdma" },
> + { .compatible = "sifive,pdma0" },
> {},
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sf_pdma_dt_ids);
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.h b/drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.h
> index 0c20167b097d..8127d792f639 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.h
> +++ b/drivers/dma/sf-pdma/sf-pdma.h
> @@ -22,11 +22,7 @@
> #include "../dmaengine.h"
> #include "../virt-dma.h"
>
> -#define PDMA_NR_CH 4
> -
> -#if (PDMA_NR_CH != 4)
> -#error "Please define PDMA_NR_CH to 4"
> -#endif
> +#define PDMA_MAX_NR_CH 4
>
> #define PDMA_BASE_ADDR 0x3000000
> #define PDMA_CHAN_OFFSET 0x1000
> @@ -118,7 +114,7 @@ struct sf_pdma {
> void __iomem *membase;
> void __iomem *mappedbase;
> u32 n_chans;
> - struct sf_pdma_chan chans[PDMA_NR_CH];
> + struct sf_pdma_chan chans[PDMA_MAX_NR_CH];
why waste memory allocating max, we know number of channels in probe,
why not allocate runtime?
I kept it there because I'd like to do minimum change in this patch
set. You're right, let me change it in the next version.
--
~Vinod
