On 09/29/2015 02:13 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 28/09/15 17:36, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/28/2015 08:57 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 25/09/15 16:47, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 25 September 2015 16:38:55 Jon Hunter wrote:
On 25/09/15 16:17, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 25/09/15 16:03, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 25 September 2015 15:56:40 Jon Hunter wrote:
+ case DMA_MEM_TO_DEV:
+ burst_size = fls(tdc->config.dst_maxburst);
+ ch_regs->config = ADMA_CH_CONFIG_SRC_BUF(num_bufs
- 1);
+ ch_regs->ctrl =
ADMA_CH_CTRL_XFER_DIR(ADMA_MEM_TO_AHUB) |
+
ADMA_CH_CTRL_TX_REQ(tdc->config.slave_id);
+ ch_regs->src_addr = buf_addr;
+ break;
+
+ case DMA_DEV_TO_MEM:
+ burst_size = fls(tdc->config.src_maxburst);
+ ch_regs->config = ADMA_CH_CONFIG_TRG_BUF(num_bufs
- 1);
+ ch_regs->ctrl =
ADMA_CH_CTRL_XFER_DIR(ADMA_AHUB_TO_MEM) |
+
ADMA_CH_CTRL_RX_REQ(tdc->config.slave_id);
+ ch_regs->trg_addr = buf_addr;
+ break;
Do not use the 'slave_id' field here to identify the slave device,
that
concept is broken. Instead, put the slave identification into the
dma specifier in DT and read it out in your xlate function.
Why is it broken?
What happens if I don't know the slave-id? In other words, the
slave-id
can be dynamically allocated and associated with a given slave.
I guess thinking about it some more, the driver could assign an id
itself to a given channel and I could avoid using slave_id here. There
are 22 channels and 10 tx and 10 rx requests.
This sounds roughly right. So you could pick the ch_regs->ctrl value
when you allocate the tegra_adma_chan structure, and then map it to
the slave in the xlate() function.
Actually, what I mentioned about would not work as it is not the DMA
that should assign the requests to the channel.
I think that I have poorly described the hardware and how it works, so
let me try and explain a bit more.
From a hardware perspective it looks like the following ...
memory <-> adma <-> adma-if <-> xbar <-> clients
where:
- memory is the system memory
- adma is the dma controller
- adma-if is the dma interface to a crossbar
- xbar is the crossbar
- clients are various audio interfaces, such as i2s, etc
The adma-if is essentially a mux with 10 tx and 10 rx ports. Any of the
22 adma channels can be mapped to any of the 10 tx or rx ports. The
request signal used by the adma is determined by which port it is
configured to use. However, what makes this even more configurable is
the xbar is also a mux that can route adma-if ports to the various
clients.
So potentially, you could use any adma channel and any port to route
audio to any of the clients. However, the adma-if needs to know which
adma channel is mapped to which port
It does? I'm pretty sure it didn't in earlier chips; what changed?
I *believe* that T210 is the first one to have the ADMA controller where
as previous chips used the APB-DMA controller.
Yes, I believe that's true.
Looking at the APB-DMA on
T124 I can see that there is a fixed REQ_SEL value for each of the APBIF
(equivalent of the ADMA-IF on T210).
I believe that is still true on T210. I don't see any difference in the
way request select values are used/configured/... The only difference is
that we're using a different DMA engine, but that DMA engine is
configured in the same way.
For earlier chips, I believe all that's required is:
When programming the DMA engine, you need to know which ADMA-IF is in
use, so the correct DMA request selector can be programmed into the DMA
engine for flow-control.
ADMA-IF simply receives the data from DMA, and forwards it to the XBAR
tagged with the ADMA-IF's own ID.
The XBAR programming selects which data source (ADMA-IF TX, I2S RX, ...)
each sink (ADMARX, I2S TX, ...) receives.
Yes, exactly, this part sounds the same. However, just the ADMA itself
allows for even more configuration.
Ideally, when an I2S controller needs to start transmitting data, it
should dynamically allocate an ADMA-IF, query it for its DMA slave
request ID, and then forward this information to the ASoC code that sets
up the DMA transfer.
Agree.
In practice, this means that since any I2S module could use any ADMA-IF,
you probably need to list all DMA request selectors possible in the
I2S's DMA-related properties, so it can choose which one to use.
Possibly, but really I think that the i2s only cares about the ADMA-IF
and the hardware request used by the ADMA can be abstracted by the
ADMA-IF. In other words, if you allocate an ADMA channel to work with a
specific ADMA-IF, then let the ADMA-IF select the hardware request
because as long as one is available, you don't care which.
Each ADMAIF (FIFO) has a single request select value statically assigned
to it as far as I can tell, just like in previous chips.
Or perhaps the XBAR binding should list all the DMA requestors so that
each I2S node doesn't have to.
Yes, however, I think that the ADMA-IF would make sense as it really
cares about the mapping of hardware request to the ADMA-IF port.
Cheers
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
