On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Benjamin Gaignard
<benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2017-10-11 16:39 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>:
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Benjamin Gaignard
>> <benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 2017-10-11 16:01 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>>> @@ -398,6 +400,9 @@ static enum dma_slave_buswidth stm32_mdma_get_max_width(u32 buf_len, u32 tlen)
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + if (addr % max_width)
>>>> + max_width = DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_1_BYTE;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I'm only half-convince by the implicite 32 bits cast done into
>>> function prototype.
>>> If we keep using dma_addr_t and use do_div() instead of %
>>> does compiler can still optimize the code ?
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't want to add a do_div() here, since it's guaranteed
>> not to be needed. Would you prefer an explicit cast here
>> and leave the argument as dma_addr_t?
>>
>> We could also use a bit mask here like
>>
>> if (addr & (max_width-1))
>
> That sound better for me since it doesn't limit the code to 32 bits architecture
FWIW, I used the u32 type here because that's the limit of the
dma driver, the dma_addr_t gets converted to that anyway
later.
>>
>> or we could combined it with the check above:
>>
>> if ((((buf_len | addr) & (max_width - 1)) == 0) &&
>> (tlen >= max_width))
>
> No it is more simple to read with two checks
I should have mentioned that this variant would also change
behavior: the current code falls back to byte access when
the address alignment is less than the length alignment.
The change I suggested here would change that to use
the maximum possible address width that fits the alignment
of either size or address.
I don't know what behavior we actually want though, or
if that change would be correct.
Arnd
--
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
