On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:08:54PM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote: <snip> > > yes, there is a potential race between atomic_inc and dma callback. I > reordered these calls to save few checks, and now it returns to me. > > I imagine few options here: > > - reorder the dmaengine calls and atomic operations, i.e. > call atomic_inc for rx and tx channels before corresponding > dmaengine_submit and dmaengine_issue_pending. > > - have two different dma callbacks and two completions and waiting for > the two. This is probably the better solution. The only thing you'll have to take into consideration is that you may not have a RX DMA transactions. > > - manage to receive only one dma callback, i.e. the last transfer in > case of presence of the rx_buf and tx_buf at the same time. You use separate channels for the RX and TX, so as long as you have separate callbacks, it shouldnt be a problem. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
