Dear Doug,
在 2018年05月08日 13:11, Doug Anderson 写道:
Hi,
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:07 PM, William Wu <william.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+static int dwc2_alloc_split_dma_aligned_buf(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg,
+ struct dwc2_qh *qh,
+ struct dwc2_host_chan *chan)
+{
+ if (!hsotg->unaligned_cache)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ if (!qh->dw_align_buf) {
+ qh->dw_align_buf = kmem_cache_alloc(hsotg->unaligned_cache,
+ GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_DMA);
+ if (!qh->dw_align_buf)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ qh->dw_align_buf_size = min_t(u32, chan->max_packet,
+ DWC2_KMEM_UNALIGNED_BUF_SIZE);
Rather than using min_t, wouldn't it be better to return -ENOMEM if
"max_packet" > DWC2_KMEM_UNALIGNED_BUF_SIZE? As it is, you might
allocate less space than you need, right? That seems like it would be
bad (even though this is probably impossible).
Yes, good idea! So is it good to fix it like this?
if (!qh->dw_align_buf || chan->max_packet >
DWC2_KMEM_UNALIGNED_BUF_SIZE)
return -ENOMEM;
qh->dw_align_buf_size = chan->max_packet;
@@ -2797,6 +2837,32 @@ static int dwc2_assign_and_init_hc(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg, struct dwc2_qh *qh)
/* Set the transfer attributes */
dwc2_hc_init_xfer(hsotg, chan, qtd);
+ /* For non-dword aligned buffers */
+ if (hsotg->params.host_dma && qh->do_split &&
+ chan->ep_is_in && (chan->xfer_dma & 0x3)) {
+ dev_vdbg(hsotg->dev, "Non-aligned buffer\n");
+ if (dwc2_alloc_split_dma_aligned_buf(hsotg, qh, chan)) {
+ dev_err(hsotg->dev,
+ "Failed to allocate memory to handle non-aligned buffer\n");
+ /* Add channel back to free list */
+ chan->align_buf = 0;
+ chan->multi_count = 0;
+ list_add_tail(&chan->hc_list_entry,
+ &hsotg->free_hc_list);
+ qtd->in_process = 0;
+ qh->channel = NULL;
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * We assume that DMA is always aligned in non-split
+ * case or split out case. Warn if not.
+ */
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(hsotg->params.host_dma &&
+ (chan->xfer_dma & 0x3));
+ chan->align_buf = 0;
+ }
+
if (chan->ep_type == USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_INT ||
chan->ep_type == USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_ISOC)
/*
@@ -5241,6 +5307,17 @@ int dwc2_hcd_init(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg)
hsotg->params.dma_desc_enable = false;
hsotg->params.dma_desc_fs_enable = false;
}
+ } else if (hsotg->params.host_dma) {
Are you sure this is "else if"? Can't you have descriptor DMA enabled
in the controller and still need to do a normal DMA transfer if you
plug in a hub? Seems like this should be just "if".
Sorry, I don't understand the case "have descriptor DMA enabled in the
controller and still need to do a normal DMA transfer". But maybe it
still has another problem if just use "if" here, because it will create
kmem caches for Slave mode which actually doesn't need aligned DMA buf.
+ /*
+ * Create kmem caches to handle non-aligned buffer
+ * in Buffer DMA mode.
+ */
+ hsotg->unaligned_cache = kmem_cache_create("dwc2-unaligned-dma",
+ DWC2_KMEM_UNALIGNED_BUF_SIZE, 4,
Worth using "DWC2_USB_DMA_ALIGN" rather than 4?
+ SLAB_CACHE_DMA, NULL);
+ if (!hsotg->unaligned_cache)
+ dev_err(hsotg->dev,
+ "unable to create dwc2 unaligned cache\n");
}
hsotg->otg_port = 1;
@@ -5279,6 +5356,7 @@ int dwc2_hcd_init(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg)
error4:
kmem_cache_destroy(hsotg->desc_gen_cache);
kmem_cache_destroy(hsotg->desc_hsisoc_cache);
+ kmem_cache_destroy(hsotg->unaligned_cache);
nitty nit: freeing order should be opposite of allocation, so the new
line should be above the other two.
Ah, I got it. But note that it's impossible to allocate the
"unaligned_cache" and "desc *cache" at the same time. Should we still
fix the free order? If yes, maybe the correct free order is:
kmem_cache_destroy(hsotg->unaligned_cache);
kmem_cache_destroy(hsotg->desc_hsisoc_cache);
kmem_cache_destroy(hsotg->desc_gen_cache);
Right?
And should we also need to fix the same free order in the "dwc2_hcd_remove"?
Best regards,
wulf
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
