On 03-10-23, 11:02, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:24:31 +0530:
>
> > On 22-09-23, 18:20, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -583,7 +690,36 @@ static int xdma_alloc_chan_resources(struct dma_chan *chan)
> > > static enum dma_status xdma_tx_status(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie,
> > > struct dma_tx_state *state)
> > > {
> > > - return dma_cookie_status(chan, cookie, state);
> > > + struct xdma_chan *xdma_chan = to_xdma_chan(chan);
> > > + struct xdma_desc *desc = NULL;
> > > + struct virt_dma_desc *vd;
> > > + enum dma_status ret;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + unsigned int period_idx;
> > > + u32 residue = 0;
> > > +
> > > + ret = dma_cookie_status(chan, cookie, state);
> > > + if (ret == DMA_COMPLETE)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&xdma_chan->vchan.lock, flags);
> > > +
> > > + vd = vchan_find_desc(&xdma_chan->vchan, cookie);
> > > + if (vd)
> > > + desc = to_xdma_desc(vd);
> >
> > vd is not used in below check, so should be done after below checks, why
> > do this for cyclic case?
>
> I'm not sure I get this comment. vd is my way to get the descriptor,
> and I need the descriptor to know whether we are in a cyclic transfer
> or not. If the transfer is not cyclic, I just return the value from
> dma_cookie_status() like before, otherwise I update the residue based
> on the content of desc.
>
> Maybe I don't understand what you mean, would you mind explaining it
> again?
Sorry I am not sure what I was thinking, this looks fine, we need the
lock to get the desc and use it
--
~Vinod
