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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: andrea.merello@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20180629072552.GY22377@vkoul-mobl>
References: <20180625092724.22164-1-andrea.merello@gmail.com> <20180629072552.GY22377@vkoul-mobl>
From:   Andrea Merello <andrea.merello@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:46:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAN8YU5Owh2Sb+-mOR0nVFkdZpD=dRd2jCin5MCdnsNLPo5zwwg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] dmaengine: xilinx_dma: in axidma slave_sg and
 dma_cylic mode align split descriptors
To:     Vinod <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc:     dan.j.williams@intel.com, michal.simek@xilinx.com,
        appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@xilinx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Vinod <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
> On 25-06-18, 11:27, Andrea Merello wrote:
>> Whenever a single or cyclic transaction is prepared, the driver
>> could eventually split it over several SG descriptors in order
>> to deal with the HW maximum transfer length.
>>
>> This could end up in DMA operations starting from a misaligned
>> address. This seems fatal for the HW if DRE is not enabled.
>>
>> This patch eventually adjusts the transfer size in order to make sure
>> all operations start from an aligned address.
>>
>> Cc: Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@xilinx.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrea Merello <andrea.merello@gmail.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@xilinx.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>>         - don't introduce copy_mask field, rather rely on already-esistent
>>           copy_align field. Suggested by Radhey Shyam Pandey
>>         - reword title
>> Changes in v3:
>>       - fix bug introduced in v2: wrong copy size when DRE is enabled
>>         use implementation suggested by Radhey Shyam Pandey
>> ---
>>  drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c
>> index 27b523530c4a..113d9bf1b6a1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c
>> @@ -1793,6 +1793,16 @@ static struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *xilinx_dma_prep_slave_sg(
>>                        */
>>                       copy = min_t(size_t, sg_dma_len(sg) - sg_used,
>>                                    XILINX_DMA_MAX_TRANS_LEN);
>> +
>> +                     if ((copy + sg_used < sg_dma_len(sg)) &&
>> +                         chan->xdev->common.copy_align) {
>> +                             /*
>> +                              * If this is not the last descriptor, make sure
>> +                              * the next one will be properly aligned
>> +                              */
>> +                             copy = rounddown(copy,
>> +                                     (1 << chan->xdev->common.copy_align));
>> +                     }
>>                       hw = &segment->hw;
>>
>>                       /* Fill in the descriptor */
>> @@ -1898,6 +1908,16 @@ static struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *xilinx_dma_prep_dma_cyclic(
>>                        */
>>                       copy = min_t(size_t, period_len - sg_used,
>>                                    XILINX_DMA_MAX_TRANS_LEN);
>> +
>> +                     if ((copy + sg_used < period_len) &&
>> +                         chan->xdev->common.copy_align) {
>> +                             /*
>> +                              * If this is not the last descriptor, make sure
>> +                              * the next one will be properly aligned
>> +                              */
>> +                             copy = rounddown(copy,
>> +                                     (1 << chan->xdev->common.copy_align));
>> +                     }
>
> same code pasted twice, can we have a routine for this... perhaps more
> code can be made common too

Yes, I see.. Indeed there was duplicated code before this series and
it is still there after it.

I can see if we can have a routine as you suggested at least for the
code portions touched by this patch. Do you eventually want this extra
change to be done in the same patch 1/5 or do you want a separate
patch i.e. 2/6 or 6/6 ?

> --
> ~Vinod