On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 08:33:57PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>
>
> On 31 December 2024 20:18:12 CET, Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 06:42:42PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 06:43:41PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> >>
> >> (...)
> >>
> >> > + # RUN pci_ep_data_transfer.dma.COPY_TEST ...
> >> > + # OK pci_ep_data_transfer.dma.COPY_TEST
> >> > + ok 11 pci_ep_data_transfer.dma.COPY_TEST
> >> > + # PASSED: 11 / 11 tests passed.
> >> > + # Totals: pass:11 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> >> > +
> >> > +
> >> > +Testcase 11 (pci_ep_data_transfer.dma.COPY_TEST) will fail for most of the DMA
> >> > +capable endpoint controllers due to the absence of the MEMCPY over DMA. For such
> >> > +controllers, it is advisable to skip the forementioned testcase using below
> >> > +command::
> >>
> >> Hm.. this is strictly not correct. If will currently fail because pci-epf-test.c
> >> does:
> >> if ((reg->flags & FLAG_USE_DMA) && epf_test->dma_private)
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> So even if a DMA driver has support for the DMA_MEMCPY cap, if the DMA driver
> >> also has the DMA_PRIVATE cap, this test will fail because of the code in
> >> pci-epf-test.c.
> >>
> >
> >Right. But I think the condition should be changed to test for the MEMCPY
> >capability instead. Like,
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> >index ef6677f34116..0b211d60a85b 100644
> >--- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> >+++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> >@@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static void pci_epf_test_copy(struct pci_epf_test *epf_test,
> > void *copy_buf = NULL, *buf;
> >
> > if (reg->flags & FLAG_USE_DMA) {
> >- if (epf_test->dma_private) {
> >+ if (!dma_has_cap(DMA_MEMCPY, epf_test->dma_chan_tx->device->cap_mask)) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Cannot transfer data using DMA\n");
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > goto set_status;
> >
>
> That check does seem to make more sense than the code that is currently there.
> (Perhaps send this as a proper patch?)
Will do.
> Note that I'm not an expert at dmaengine.
>
> I have some patches that adds DMA_MEMCPY to dw-edma, but I'm not sure if the DWC eDMA hardware supports having both src and dst as PCI addresses, or if only one of them can be a PCI address (with the other one being a local address).
>
> If only one of them can be a PCI address, then I'm not sure if your suggested patch is correct.
>
I don't see why that would be an issue. DMA_MEMCPY is independent of PCI/local
addresses. If a dmaengine driver support doing MEMCPY, then the dma cap should
be sufficient. As you said, if a controller supports both SLAVE and MEMCPY, the
test currently errors out, which is wrong.
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
