by Zhao Qiang

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 3/3] qe_common: add qe_muram_ functions to manage muram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:23 AM
> To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> Cc: Laura Abbott; [email protected]; linuxppc-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Xie Xiaobo-R63061;
> [email protected]; Li Yang-Leo-R58472; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] qe_common: add qe_muram_ functions to manage
> muram
>
> On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 02:19 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> > On 08/25/2015 12:15 PM, Laura Abbott wrote
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Laura Abbott [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:15 PM
> > > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475; Wood Scott-B07421
> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > > [email protected]; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; [email protected];
> > > Li Yang-Leo-R58472; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] qe_common: add qe_muram_ functions to
> > > manage muram
> > >
> > > On 08/24/2015 08:03 PM, Zhao Qiang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Laura Abbott [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:32 AM
> > > > > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475; Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > > > > [email protected]; Xie Xiaobo-R63061;
> > > > > [email protected]; Li Yang-Leo-R58472; [email protected]
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] qe_common: add qe_muram_ functions
> > > > > to manage muram
> > > > >
> > > > > There doesn't seem to be a check for allocation failure from the
> > > > > gen_alloc.
> > > >
> > > > gen_pool_alloc will return 0 if there is error, but if the address
> > > > returned is just 0x0, it can't distinguish it is address or error.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that's a bad limitation of gen_pool. Maybe one day that will
> > > get fixed.
> > > In a previous out of tree driver, I worked around this by offsetting
> > > the gen_pool_add by a constant so any return value was non-zero and
> > > out of memory was zero and then subtracting the constant off of the
> return value.
> > > Not sure if that's better or worse than just fixing gen_alloc.
> > >
> >
> > The workaround works for non alignment allocation, but for alignment
> > allocation, It need to align bytes to addr 0, offsetting the
> > gen_pool_add maybe make wrong alignment
>
> It would work if the offset you add is a multiple of the size of muram.

The QE apps ask different bytes alignment for different use due to hardware restriction.
Why don’t we deal with it in gen_pool_alloc func instead of a workaround?
It is more reasonable.

>
> -Scott

????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?

2015-08-26 01:53:11

by Scott Wood

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] qe_common: add qe_muram_ functions to manage muram

On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 20:49 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:23 AM
> > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> > Cc: Laura Abbott; [email protected]; linuxppc-
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; Xie Xiaobo-R63061;
> > [email protected]; Li Yang-Leo-R58472; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] qe_common: add qe_muram_ functions to manage
> > muram
> >
> > On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 02:19 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> > > On 08/25/2015 12:15 PM, Laura Abbott wrote
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Laura Abbott [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:15 PM
> > > > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475; Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > > > [email protected]; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; [email protected];
> > > > Li Yang-Leo-R58472; [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] qe_common: add qe_muram_ functions to
> > > > manage muram
> > > >
> > > > On 08/24/2015 08:03 PM, Zhao Qiang wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Laura Abbott [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:32 AM
> > > > > > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475; Wood Scott-B07421
> > > > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > > > > > [email protected]; Xie Xiaobo-R63061;
> > > > > > [email protected]; Li Yang-Leo-R58472; [email protected]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] qe_common: add qe_muram_ functions
> > > > > > to manage muram
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There doesn't seem to be a check for allocation failure from the
> > > > > > gen_alloc.
> > > > >
> > > > > gen_pool_alloc will return 0 if there is error, but if the address
> > > > > returned is just 0x0, it can't distinguish it is address or error.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's a bad limitation of gen_pool. Maybe one day that will
> > > > get fixed.
> > > > In a previous out of tree driver, I worked around this by offsetting
> > > > the gen_pool_add by a constant so any return value was non-zero and
> > > > out of memory was zero and then subtracting the constant off of the
> > return value.
> > > > Not sure if that's better or worse than just fixing gen_alloc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The workaround works for non alignment allocation, but for alignment
> > > allocation, It need to align bytes to addr 0, offsetting the
> > > gen_pool_add maybe make wrong alignment
> >
> > It would work if the offset you add is a multiple of the size of muram.
>
> The QE apps ask different bytes alignment for different use due to hardware
> restriction.
> Why don’t we deal with it in gen_pool_alloc func instead of a workaround?
> It is more reasonable.
>

Sure, fixing gen_pool_alloc would be better if you're willing to do it, and
are careful not to break existing users. I was just pointing out that the
workaround isn't totally incompatible with alignment.

-Scott