Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 14:41:34 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
To:     Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
Cc:     dwmw2@infradead.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com,
        marek.vasut@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, mturquette@baylibre.com,
        sboyd@kernel.org, dev@lynxeye.de, miquel.raynal@bootlin.com,
        richard@nod.at, marcel@ziswiler.com, krzk@kernel.org,
        digetx@gmail.com, benjamin.lindqvist@endian.se,
        jonathanh@nvidia.com, pdeschrijver@nvidia.com, pgaikwad@nvidia.com,
        mirza.krak@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/5] mtd: rawnand: add NVIDIA Tegra NAND Flash
 controller driver
Message-ID: <20180524144134.41a71063@bbrezillon>
In-Reply-To: <20180524142356.0fc68797@bbrezillon>
References: <cover.1526990589.git.stefan@agner.ch>
        <86fdf19ec92b732709732fb60199f16488b4b727.1526990589.git.stefan@agner.ch>
        <20180523161810.0ed9fe80@bbrezillon>
        <2d8107f0e6568512d691e9ea25a1e4e5@agner.ch>
        <20180524105614.3c51736c@bbrezillon>
        <7b3cc3991fb054130fd54c6fdfec5097@agner.ch>
        <20180524142356.0fc68797@bbrezillon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 24 May 2018 14:23:56 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:09:53 +0200
> Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:
> 
> > On 24.05.2018 10:56, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> > > On Thu, 24 May 2018 10:46:27 +0200
> > > Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:
> > >     
> > >> Hi Boris,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the initial review! One small question below:
> > >>
> > >> On 23.05.2018 16:18, Boris Brezillon wrote:    
> > >> > Hi Stefan,
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:07:06 +0200
> > >> > Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:    
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> +struct tegra_nand {
> > >> >> +	void __iomem *regs;
> > >> >> +	struct clk *clk;
> > >> >> +	struct gpio_desc *wp_gpio;
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> +	struct nand_chip chip;
> > >> >> +	struct device *dev;
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> +	struct completion command_complete;
> > >> >> +	struct completion dma_complete;
> > >> >> +	bool last_read_error;
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> +	dma_addr_t data_dma;
> > >> >> +	void *data_buf;
> > >> >> +	dma_addr_t oob_dma;
> > >> >> +	void *oob_buf;
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> +	int cur_chip;
> > >> >> +};    
> > >> >
> > >> > This struct should be split in 2 structures: one representing the NAND
> > >> > controller and one representing the NAND chip:
> > >> >
> > >> > struct tegra_nand_controller {
> > >> > 	struct nand_hw_control base;
> > >> > 	void __iomem *regs;
> > >> > 	struct clk *clk;
> > >> > 	struct device *dev;
> > >> > 	struct completion command_complete;
> > >> > 	struct completion dma_complete;
> > >> > 	bool last_read_error;
> > >> > 	int cur_chip;
> > >> > };
> > >> >
> > >> > struct tegra_nand {
> > >> > 	struct nand_chip base;
> > >> > 	dma_addr_t data_dma;
> > >> > 	void *data_buf;
> > >> > 	dma_addr_t oob_dma;
> > >> > 	void *oob_buf;
> > >> > };    
> > >>
> > >> Is there a particular reason why you would leave DMA buffers in the chip
> > >> structure? It seems that is more a controller thing...    
> > > 
> > > The size of those buffers is likely to be device dependent, so if you
> > > have several NANDs connected to the controller, you'll either have to
> > > have one buffer at the controller level which is max(all-chip-buf-size)
> > > or a buffer per device.
> > > 
> > > Also, do you really need these buffers? The core already provide some
> > > which are suitable for DMA (chip->oob_poi and chip->data_buf).
> > >     
> > 
> > Good question, I am not sure, that was existing code.
> > 
> > Are you sure data_buf it is DMA capable?
> > 
> > nand_scan_tail allocates with kmalloc:
> > 
> > chip->data_buf = kmalloc(mtd->writesize + mtd->oobsize, GFP_KERNEL);  
> 
> Yes, kmalloc() allocates DMA-able buffers, so those are DMA-safe.

Hm, that's not exactly true. It depends on the dma_mask attached to the
device.