Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220620162059.1097264-1-cosmin.tanislav@analog.com>
 <20220620162059.1097264-3-cosmin.tanislav@analog.com> <CAHp75VcBJkQ+CwyoDaTJ_AD+mv9d0tEd_txqHwkPRy4-xvnyKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2aa93eab-de6d-866b-a829-36b47ff00982@gmail.com> <CAHp75Vc_fcAP6gGwMkYZUoMM6jKeUoQr8J+zYCUz8inSHnTF_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <54bfff70-938f-16e1-198d-47ed9ba95db4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54bfff70-938f-16e1-198d-47ed9ba95db4@gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:33:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeRgnCLP0YqiOe8OkW3hQ178ia+Y3PjFtCMW4Sh7JfCZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] iio: adc: ad4130: add AD4130 driver
To:     Cosmin Tanislav <demonsingur@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cosmin Tanislav <cosmin.tanislav@analog.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:14 PM Cosmin Tanislav <demonsingur@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/23/22 18:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 5:27 PM Cosmin Tanislav <demonsingur@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/20/22 21:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 6:27 PM Cosmin Tanislav <demonsingur@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> >>>> +       /*
> >>>> +        * DMA (thus cache coherency maintenance) requires the
> >>>> +        * transfer buffers to live in their own cache lines.
> >>>> +        */
> >>>
> >>> This is a good comment, but what fields does it apply to?
> >>
> >> Whatever is below it, grouped together. This is not hard to
> >> understand.
> >
> > It's hard to understand what exactly is DMA-aware here. I see only one
> > buffer that is aligned properly for DMA, the rest are not, except the
> > case if all of them are going in one DMA transaction. Is this the case
> > here?
> >
> >>>> +       u8                      reset_buf[AD4130_RESET_BUF_SIZE] __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN);
> >
> > This is aligned.
> >
> >>>> +       u8                      reg_write_tx_buf[4];
> >
> > This one is aligned + offset (== AD4130_RESET_BUF_SIZE + 0).
> >
> >>>> +       u8                      reg_read_tx_buf[1];
> >
> > This one is aligned + offset (== AD4130_RESET_BUF_SIZE + 0 + 4).
> >
> >>>> +       u8                      reg_read_rx_buf[3];
> >
> > This one is aligned + offset (== AD4130_RESET_BUF_SIZE + 0 + 4 + 1).
> > And this is Rx.
> >
> >>>> +       u8                      fifo_tx_buf[2];
> >
> > Here is Tx again which is most likely is not aligned...
> >
> >>>> +       u8                      fifo_rx_buf[AD4130_FIFO_SIZE *
> >>>> +                                           AD4130_FIFO_MAX_SAMPLE_SIZE];
> >>>> +};
> >
>
> This has been mentioned before by Jonathan as a reply to V6 of my
> AD74413R driver.
>
>  > I'm surprised I didn't mention this before but you only need to
> ensure  > that any memory used for DMA is not in a cacheline with memory
> used
>  > for other things that might change concurrently.
>
> To my understanding, as long as the DMA buffers will all be accessed by
> the same DMA-compatible SPI controller, you only need to align them so
> they're not in the same cacheline with memory that will not be accessed
> by the SPI controller.

SPI is synchronous by nature, what will happen if the Tx and Rx
buffers are sharing the same cache line? Anybody to shed a light here?

(I.o.w. I'm not sure that we don't need to split the Rx and Tx buffers
of the same transfer.)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko