On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 03:30:19PM +0900, Jiada Wang wrote:
> >>+static int sdma_disable_channel_with_delay(struct dma_chan *chan)
> >>+{
> >>+ sdma_disable_channel(chan);
> >>+ mdelay(1);
> >
> >what is the gaurantee that 1ms is fine? Shouldn't you poll the bit to see
> >channel is disabled properly..
> >
> I got the information from NXP (freescale) R&D team,
> according to them, by write '1' to SDMA_H_STATSTOP, only disables
> the related sdma channel (so poll HE bit will indicates the channel
> has been disabled),
> but it cannot ensure SDMA core stop to access modules' FIFO,
> SDMA core may still is running, this is a bug in HW.
Okay b ut you are not doing the HE bit here..??
>
> regarding if the '1ms' is enough to ensure SDMA core has stopped,
> NXP R&D team mentioned:
> "we should add some delay of one BD SDMA cost time after disable the
> channel bit, the maximum is 1ms"
> so I assume 1ms should work for all cases
At least please document this in changelog and comments in code.
--
~Vinod
--
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
