Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:53:10 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     "Ye, Xiang" <xiang.ye@intel.com>
Cc:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
        Tyrone Ting <kfting@nuvoton.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com,
        zhifeng.wang@intel.com, wentong.wu@intel.com, lixu.zhang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] gpio: Add support for Intel LJCA USB GPIO driver
Message-ID: <ZArh5iMkdj0L9AXZ@kroah.com>
References: <20230309071100.2856899-1-xiang.ye@intel.com>
 <20230309071100.2856899-3-xiang.ye@intel.com>
 <2865f3d0-428b-0df1-fc50-f6af3cb9dac3@suse.com>
 <ZAqyhXt9nNIE9Ej7@ye-NUC7i7DNHE>
 <ZArYCD0r6n0sJ7LI@kroah.com>
 <ZArem5MwWrgOY2nJ@ye-NUC7i7DNHE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZArem5MwWrgOY2nJ@ye-NUC7i7DNHE>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:39:07PM +0800, Ye, Xiang wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:11:04AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 01:01:11PM +0800, Ye, Xiang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:40:10PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 09.03.23 08:10, Ye Xiang wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > +#define LJCA_GPIO_BUF_SIZE 60
> > > > > +struct ljca_gpio_dev {
> > > > > +	struct platform_device *pdev;
> > > > > +	struct gpio_chip gc;
> > > > > +	struct ljca_gpio_info *gpio_info;
> > > > > +	DECLARE_BITMAP(unmasked_irqs, LJCA_MAX_GPIO_NUM);
> > > > > +	DECLARE_BITMAP(enabled_irqs, LJCA_MAX_GPIO_NUM);
> > > > > +	DECLARE_BITMAP(reenable_irqs, LJCA_MAX_GPIO_NUM);
> > > > > +	u8 *connect_mode;
> > > > > +	/* mutex to protect irq bus */
> > > > > +	struct mutex irq_lock;
> > > > > +	struct work_struct work;
> > > > > +	/* lock to protect package transfer to Hardware */
> > > > > +	struct mutex trans_lock;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	u8 obuf[LJCA_GPIO_BUF_SIZE];
> > > > > +	u8 ibuf[LJCA_GPIO_BUF_SIZE];
> > > > 
> > > > And here we have a violation of DMA coherency rules.
> > > > Basically you cannot embed buffers into other data structures
> > > > if they can be subject to DMA.
> > > But obuf and ibuf does not used to do DMA transfer here.
> > > It is actually copied from or to ljca buffer to do URB transfer.
> > 
> > urb transfers _ARE_ DMA transfers.
> > 
> > > Should it still need to follow the DMA coherency rules?
> > 
> > Yes, all buffers for USB urbs are required to follow those rules.
> But these two buffers are not used to do USB urb transfer directly.
> For the "u8 obuf[LJCA_GPIO_BUF_SIZE]",  it will be copied to ljca buffer
> ("header->data" as below code [1] showed) first. Then the "header" is used
> to do the actual urb transfer.
> 
> And the "header" is allocated by using kmalloc. It should has met the DMA
> coherency rules.
> 
> [1] """
> struct ljca_msg *header;
> ...
> header = kmalloc(msg_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!header)
> 	return -ENOMEM;

Ok, that's good, but why have 2 buffers for this then?

thanks,

greg k-h