On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:28:25PM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> This patch adds support for hidma engine. The driver consists
> of two logical blocks. The DMA engine interface and the
> low-level interface. The hardware only supports memcpy/memset
> and this driver only support memcpy interface. HW and driver
> doesn't support slave interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom_hidma.txt | 18 +
> drivers/dma/qcom/Kconfig | 10 +
> drivers/dma/qcom/Makefile | 2 +
> drivers/dma/qcom/hidma.c | 706 ++++++++++++++++
> drivers/dma/qcom/hidma.h | 157 ++++
> drivers/dma/qcom/hidma_dbg.c | 217 +++++
> drivers/dma/qcom/hidma_ll.c | 924 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 7 files changed, 2034 insertions(+)
This was one of the reasons for slow review of this. I started few times but
large patches made this getting pushed back
Pls help reviewers by splitting your code which looking at this could have
been done
> +#include <linux/dmaengine.h>
> +#include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/list.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/of_dma.h>
> +#include <linux/property.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/highmem.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include <linux/wait.h>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> +#include <linux/irq.h>
> +#include <linux/atomic.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
Do you need so many headers...?
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(event_channel_idx,
> + "event channel index array for the notifications");
Can you explain this parameter in detail pls
> +static void hidma_callback(void *data)
> +{
> + struct hidma_desc *mdesc = data;
> + struct hidma_chan *mchan = to_hidma_chan(mdesc->desc.chan);
> + struct dma_device *ddev = mchan->chan.device;
> + struct hidma_dev *dmadev = to_hidma_dev(ddev);
> + unsigned long irqflags;
> + bool queued = false;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&mchan->lock, irqflags);
> + if (mdesc->node.next) {
> + /* Delete from the active list, add to completed list */
> + list_move_tail(&mdesc->node, &mchan->completed);
> + queued = true;
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mchan->lock, irqflags);
> +
> + hidma_process_completed(dmadev);
> +
> + if (queued) {
> + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dmadev->ddev.dev);
> + pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dmadev->ddev.dev);
> + }
> +}
Callback is typically referred to client callback upon dma completion, can
you explain what you are trying to do here
> +static int hidma_chan_init(struct hidma_dev *dmadev, u32 dma_sig)
> +{
> + struct hidma_chan *mchan;
> + struct dma_device *ddev;
> +
> + mchan = devm_kzalloc(dmadev->ddev.dev, sizeof(*mchan), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!mchan)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + ddev = &dmadev->ddev;
> + mchan->dma_sig = dma_sig;
> + mchan->dmadev = dmadev;
> + mchan->chan.device = ddev;
> + dma_cookie_init(&mchan->chan);
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mchan->free);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mchan->prepared);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mchan->active);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mchan->completed);
> +
> + spin_lock_init(&mchan->lock);
> + list_add_tail(&mchan->chan.device_node, &ddev->channels);
> + dmadev->ddev.chancnt++;
Have you looked at vchan implementation and moving list handling to this
layer ?
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void hidma_issue_pending(struct dma_chan *dmach)
> +{
> + struct hidma_chan *mchan = to_hidma_chan(dmach);
> + struct hidma_dev *dmadev = mchan->dmadev;
> +
> + /* PM will be released in hidma_callback function. */
> + pm_runtime_get_sync(dmadev->ddev.dev);
Oh no, this is not allowed. pm_runtime_get_sync() can sleep and
issue_pending can be invoked from atomic context.
> +static enum dma_status hidma_tx_status(struct dma_chan *dmach,
> + dma_cookie_t cookie, struct dma_tx_state *txstate)
> +{
> + struct hidma_chan *mchan = to_hidma_chan(dmach);
> + enum dma_status ret;
> +
> + if (mchan->paused)
> + ret = DMA_PAUSED;
This is not quite right. The status query is for a descriptor and NOT for
channel. Here if the descriptor queried was running then it would be paused
for the rest pending txn, it would be DMA_IN_PROGRESS.
> +static dma_cookie_t hidma_tx_submit(struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *txd)
> +{
> + struct hidma_chan *mchan = to_hidma_chan(txd->chan);
> + struct hidma_dev *dmadev = mchan->dmadev;
> + struct hidma_desc *mdesc;
> + unsigned long irqflags;
> + dma_cookie_t cookie;
> +
> + if (!hidma_ll_isenabled(dmadev->lldev))
> + return -ENODEV;
is this not too late for this check, you should fail this on prepare
method
> +static int hidma_alloc_chan_resources(struct dma_chan *dmach)
> +{
> + struct hidma_chan *mchan = to_hidma_chan(dmach);
> + struct hidma_dev *dmadev = mchan->dmadev;
> + struct hidma_desc *mdesc, *tmp;
> + unsigned long irqflags;
> + LIST_HEAD(descs);
> + unsigned int i;
> + int rc = 0;
> +
> + if (mchan->allocated)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Alloc descriptors for this channel */
> + for (i = 0; i < dmadev->nr_descriptors; i++) {
> + mdesc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hidma_desc), GFP_KERNEL);
GFP_NOWAIT pls, this can be called from atomic context
> + if (!mdesc) {
> + rc = -ENOMEM;
> + break;
> + }
> + dma_async_tx_descriptor_init(&mdesc->desc, dmach);
> + mdesc->desc.flags = DMA_CTRL_ACK;
what is the purpose of setting this flag here
> +static void hidma_free_chan_resources(struct dma_chan *dmach)
> +{
> + struct hidma_chan *mchan = to_hidma_chan(dmach);
> + struct hidma_dev *mdma = mchan->dmadev;
> + struct hidma_desc *mdesc, *tmp;
> + unsigned long irqflags;
> + LIST_HEAD(descs);
> +
> + if (!list_empty(&mchan->prepared) || !list_empty(&mchan->active) ||
> + !list_empty(&mchan->completed)) {
> + /*
> + * We have unfinished requests waiting.
> + * Terminate the request from the hardware.
that sounds as bug.. free should be called when txn are completed/aborted
> + */
> + hidma_cleanup_pending_tre(mdma->lldev, ERR_INFO_SW,
> + ERR_CODE_UNEXPECTED_TERMINATE);
> +
> + /* Give enough time for completions to be called. */
> + msleep(100);
should we not poll/read after delay, also we are still in atomic context
> + }
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&mchan->lock, irqflags);
> + /* Channel must be idle */
sorry I do not like that assumption
> + /* return all user requests */
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(mdesc, tmp, &list, node) {
> + struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *txd = &mdesc->desc;
> + dma_async_tx_callback callback = mdesc->desc.callback;
> + void *param = mdesc->desc.callback_param;
> + enum dma_status status;
> +
> + dma_descriptor_unmap(txd);
> +
> + status = hidma_ll_status(dmadev->lldev, mdesc->tre_ch);
> + /*
> + * The API requires that no submissions are done from a
> + * callback, so we don't need to drop the lock here
> + */
That is correct assumption for async_tx and which is deprecated now.
In fact the converse is true for rest!
> +static int hidma_pause(struct dma_chan *chan)
> +{
> + struct hidma_chan *mchan;
> + struct hidma_dev *dmadev;
> +
> + mchan = to_hidma_chan(chan);
> + dmadev = to_hidma_dev(mchan->chan.device);
> + if (!mchan->paused) {
> + pm_runtime_get_sync(dmadev->ddev.dev);
> + if (hidma_ll_pause(dmadev->lldev))
> + dev_warn(dmadev->ddev.dev, "channel did not stop\n");
> + mchan->paused = true;
> + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dmadev->ddev.dev);
> + pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dmadev->ddev.dev);
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
This is interesting, we associate pause/resume for slave dma ops and not for
memcpy ops, what is the reason for adding pause/resume here?
> +static int hidma_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct hidma_dev *dmadev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + pm_runtime_get_sync(dmadev->ddev.dev);
> + dma_async_device_unregister(&dmadev->ddev);
> + hidma_debug_uninit(dmadev);
> + hidma_ll_uninit(dmadev->lldev);
> + hidma_free(dmadev);
> +
> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "HI-DMA engine removed\n");
> + pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend(&pdev->dev);
> + pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
and your irq is still active and can invoke your irq handler!
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI)
> +static const struct acpi_device_id hidma_acpi_ids[] = {
> + {"QCOM8061"},
Qcom and ACPI, that is v interesting combination !
--
~Vinod
--
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
