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
References: <cover.1555330115.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org> <d77dca51a14087873627d735a17adcfde5517398.1555330115.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
 <20190429115723.GK3845@vkoul-mobl.Dlink> <CAMz4kuLf4wgr4Js3xH1aQVc4c2XK1Oq2TnsUq=NSowQUq5ZN5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190429140537.GN3845@vkoul-mobl.Dlink> <CAMz4ku+ctQrcR+6t1ouakeG3dbgL3qR8fz-Hft4s9FnxtFL1ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190430082954.GQ3845@vkoul-mobl.Dlink>
In-Reply-To: <20190430082954.GQ3845@vkoul-mobl.Dlink>
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:34:19 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMz4kuKV3J+aw9sic=QOhmcnr+H_pZ-pmq4pRbLX1R+XAR=phA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dmaengine: sprd: Add device validation to support
 multiple controllers
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, eric.long@unisoc.com,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 16:30, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 30-04-19, 13:30, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 22:05, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 29-04-19, 20:20, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 19:57, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 15-04-19, 20:14, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > > > > From: Eric Long <eric.long@unisoc.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since we can support multiple DMA engine controllers, we should add
> > > > > > device validation in filter function to check if the correct controller
> > > > > > to be requested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Long <eric.long@unisoc.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/dma/sprd-dma.c |    5 +++++
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/sprd-dma.c b/drivers/dma/sprd-dma.c
> > > > > > index 0f92e60..9f99d4b 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/dma/sprd-dma.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/dma/sprd-dma.c
> > > > > > @@ -1020,8 +1020,13 @@ static void sprd_dma_free_desc(struct virt_dma_desc *vd)
> > > > > >  static bool sprd_dma_filter_fn(struct dma_chan *chan, void *param)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >       struct sprd_dma_chn *schan = to_sprd_dma_chan(chan);
> > > > > > +     struct of_phandle_args *dma_spec =
> > > > > > +             container_of(param, struct of_phandle_args, args[0]);
> > > > > >       u32 slave_id = *(u32 *)param;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +     if (chan->device->dev->of_node != dma_spec->np)
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you not using of_dma_find_controller() that does this, so this would
> > > > > be useless!
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we can use of_dma_find_controller(), but that will be a little
> > > > complicated than current solution. Since we need introduce one
> > > > structure to save the node to validate in the filter function like
> > > > below, which seems make things complicated. But if you still like to
> > > > use of_dma_find_controller(), I can change to use it in next version.
> > >
> > > Sorry I should have clarified more..
> > >
> > > of_dma_find_controller() is called by xlate, so you already run this
> > > check, so why use this :)
> >
> > The of_dma_find_controller() can save the requested device node into
> > dma_spec, and in the of_dma_simple_xlate() function, it will call
> > dma_request_channel() to request one channel, but it did not validate
> > the device node to find the corresponding dma device in
> > dma_request_channel(). So we should in our filter function to validate
> > the device node with the device node specified by the dma_spec. Hope I
> > make things clear.
>
> But dma_request_channel() calls of_dma_request_slave_channel() which
> invokes of_dma_find_controller() why is it broken for you if that is the
> case..

No,the calling process should be:
dma_request_slave_channel()
--->dma_request_chan()--->of_dma_request_slave_channel()---->of_dma_simple_xlate()
----> dma_request_channel().

-- 
Baolin Wang
Best Regards