Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] i2c: add docs to clarify DMA handling

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > +Therefore, it is *not* mandatory that the buffer of an i2c message is DMA safe.
> > +It does not seem reasonable to apply additional burdens when the feature is so
> > +rarely used. However, it is recommended to use a DMA-safe buffer, if your
> > +message size is likely applicable for DMA (FIXME: > 8 byte?).
> 
> So you expect drivers to fall back to PIO automatically if the buffer is
> not DMA safe.  Sounds good to me.

Yes, I strongly recommend that. Otherwise, drivers can always deal with
bounce buffers on their own.

> However, your check for a DMA-capable buffer is invoked only if
> CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG is enabled:

is *NOT* enabled!

> 
>     #if !defined(CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG)
>            if (!virt_addr_valid(msg->buf) || object_is_on_stack(msg->buf)) {
>                    pr_debug("msg buffer to 0x%04x might not be DMA capable\n",
>                             msg->addr);
>                    return -EFAULT;
>            }
>     #endif
> 

The #if block is there because DMA_API_DEBUG does a lot more, but if the
check in the helper is enabled, the core will fall back to PIO and you
won't get the additional info from DMA_API_DEBUG.

I think this needs a comment :)

Now OK?

Regards,

   Wolfram

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux