On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 03:18:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 06:34:50AM +0000, Joy Chakraborty wrote: > > Check capabilities of DMA controller during init to make sure it is > > capable of handling MEM2DEV for tx channel, DEV2MEM for rx channel > > and store addr_width capabilities to check per transfer to make sure the > > bits/word requirement can be met for that transfer. > > ... > > > +static enum dma_slave_buswidth dw_spi_dma_convert_width(u8 n_bytes); > > Can we avoid forward declarations please? > > ... > > > + if (!(tx.directions & BIT(DMA_MEM_TO_DEV) && > > + rx.directions & BIT(DMA_DEV_TO_MEM))) > > + return -ENXIO; > > What about simplex transfers where we only care about sending or receiving data > and using dummy data for the other channel? Doesn't this make a regression for > that types of transfers? (Or, if we don't support such, this should be explained > in the commit message at least.) I don't think the code above is that much relevant for the half-duplex transfers. The DW APB SSI-DMA driver requires both Tx and Rx channels being specified thus supporting the Full-duplex transfers at least in case of the TxRx and Rx-only SPI-transfers (the later case relies on having the dummy buffers supplied by the SPI-core). Thus the channels must support the corresponding DMA-directions. Indeed the Tx-only DMA-based SPI-transfers implementation in the driver implies not using the Rx DMA-channel, but even in that case the Rx-channel still needs to be specified otherwise the DW APB SSI-DMA setup methods will halt with error returned. So unless there are cases with dummy Rx DMA-channels (which I very much doubt there is) I don't see the suggested update causing a regression. Am I missing something? > > ... > > > + /* > > + * Assuming both channels belong to the same DMA controller hence the > > + * address width capabilities most likely would be the same. > > + */ > > + dws->dma_addr_widths = tx.dst_addr_widths & rx.src_addr_widths; > > I don't think so this is correct. > > Theoretically it's possible to have simplex transfers on which the one of > the channel is simply ignored / not used. See above. Please see my explanation above. To cut it short even in case of the half-duplex SPI-xfers both channels need to be specified with the respective capabilities. It's implied by the DW APB SSI-DMA setup methods design (see dw_spi_dma_init_mfld() and dw_spi_dma_init_generic()). So until the DW APB SSI-DMA driver is re-developed to supporting true Tx-only and Rx-only transfers with no requirement one of the channels being specified I don't see any problem with the code above. Do you still think otherwise? -Serge(y) > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >