Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758376Ab1FPR2U (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:28:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:59565 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758175Ab1FPR2T (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:28:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Y+0Q9tIeXwqJehjsXUfzr0XTI3s9QxOi46WwGE7PBU9sEzBMNENBTt6j4l3y5NJyXq 3kFUHN0NBfioKmMd1DmK8Jb8Yqr6jObs6k/FFD/4Oy+268EyIeHS1eerbYqSUvm5XTYW 46t58MWpp1hINlGf0zAdU8AelwglSTLl8O15I= Message-ID: <4DFA3D30.2070909@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:28:16 -0700 From: Dirk Brandewie User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Feng Tang CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net" , alan@linux.intel.com, alek.du@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] dw_spi: rework message processing References: <1308158588-17249-1-git-send-email-dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> <1308158588-17249-4-git-send-email-dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> <20110616220003.7ac89d56@feng-i7> In-Reply-To: <20110616220003.7ac89d56@feng-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4394 Lines: 83 On 06/16/2011 07:00 AM, Feng Tang wrote: > Hi Dirk, > > IMHO, the patch is too big, it contains too many changes to the original > drivers, and we can't see clearly what you've changed to each logical > code part or section, If possible, could you separate this patch to > several small ones in a logical way. > > First, I have some questions, what devices have you tested with this patch? > high speed, low speed? Do you have any performance data to show the benefit > of this change? Current dw_spi driver has been tested with many devices, so > to not break them or cause obvious regression, we have to be cautious. See Thread with grant for list of environments where it has been tested. The boot time of the platforms it is being used on decreased 2-5 seconds with no regressions reported. It has been in use/under test for ~3 months in various Meego and Android builds. It clears all the bugs reported against the driver that I am aware of. If you can give me pointers to teams/projects that are using v2.6.37+ kernels I would be more that happy to provide them with patches for their kernel to ensure we get the most comprehensive test possible. > > Here are some general comments according to the commit logs: > 1. I think the threaded irq handling is a good idea. And let driver chose to > use poll or interrupt is good, some other spi controller driver has used > that way for a long time > 2. Why you remove the cs_change code, in some case, the controller is only > be used by one device, we don't need do the config for every single > spi_transfer There is no guarantee that all the transfers in a given spi_message have the same values for speed_hz, bits_per_word, cs_change and delay_usecs atleast nothing I could find put that restriction in place. Since we need to deal with possible changes (although unlikely) it gets rid some state we need to maintain and makes the code path common for all transfers. > 3. Why do you remove the chip select control code, dw_spi controller hw has > some problem in chip select controller by SER, and thus many devices has > to use external GPIO has their chip select, this is real world usages! Which devices/platforms are you referring to? I was unable to find any platforms or client drivers using this functionality. If they are not public please respond internally. In any case it is mute since I already agreed to put is back in in my response to Grant. > 4. I saw you enable both TX/RX interrupt when doing interrupt transfer, spi > devices' TX/RX are born to be simutaneous, when one word is sent over > TX line, a RX word will be received from RX line, so both the orignal > interrupt transfer handling written by me and the later optimization > from Alek Du only enable TX interrupt, which will only generate half of > IRQs comparing to enble both TX/RX, this is huge when the data rate is > several Mb per second I the current driver the txfltr register is set to 0 (FIFO empty) in the interrupt transfer case which will drop chip select every FIFO length bytes. In my transfer setup the RX FIFO interrupt is set to a value lower than the TX threshold which will keep both interrupts from firing at the same time. The TX interrupt will drive the transfer until there are less than tx_threshold bytes left to transfer then by the RX interrupt to drive the remainder of the transfer without dropping chip select. > 5. Why do you change the logic of filling TX FIFO, the logic comes from use > case that the dw_spi driver is dealing with several high speed devices. > The version of the driver that I started with did not have the current fifo handling code. I finished my changes before they showed up in the AC tree or the upstream kernel. I picked up most to the fifo handling logic from the current driver with the exception of the rxtx_gap calculation which was not needed with the way I am maintaining the state and the addition of a check to avoid the register read in tx_max/rx_max if all bytes have been sent/received. This avoids some overhead in the interrupt case. > Thanks, > Feng > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/