Re: [PATCH 2/2] dmaengine i.MX SDMA: protect channel0
From: Dan Williams
Date: Tue Dec 07 2010 - 18:50:39 EST
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Channel 0 of the SDMA engine is a shared resource used by the
> other channels, thus we have to protect it with a mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
This one is not making sense to me...
> drivers/dma/imx-sdma.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/imx-sdma.c b/drivers/dma/imx-sdma.c
> index 01c4a5f..b1f5947 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/imx-sdma.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/imx-sdma.c
> @@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ struct sdma_engine {
> struct dma_device dma_device;
> struct clk *clk;
> struct sdma_script_start_addrs *script_addrs;
> + struct mutex channel0_mutex;
> };
>
> #define SDMA_H_CONFIG_DSPDMA (1 << 12) /* indicates if the DSPDMA is used */
> @@ -437,6 +438,8 @@ static int sdma_load_script(struct sdma_engine *sdma, void *buf, int size,
> if (!buf_virt)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + mutex_lock(&sdma->channel0_mutex);
> +
> bd0->mode.command = C0_SETPM;
> bd0->mode.status = BD_DONE | BD_INTR | BD_WRAP | BD_EXTD;
> bd0->mode.count = size / 2;
> @@ -447,6 +450,8 @@ static int sdma_load_script(struct sdma_engine *sdma, void *buf, int size,
>
> ret = sdma_run_channel(&sdma->channel[0]);
>
> + mutex_unlock(&sdma->channel0_mutex);
> +
In sdma_load_script() what data structure are we protecting at single
threaded init time prior to registering channels?
> dma_free_coherent(NULL, size, buf_virt, buf_phys);
>
> return ret;
> @@ -684,6 +689,8 @@ static int sdma_load_context(struct sdma_channel *sdmac)
> context->gReg[6] = sdmac->shp_addr;
> context->gReg[7] = sdmac->watermark_level;
>
> + mutex_lock(&sdma->channel0_mutex);
> +
> bd0->mode.command = C0_SETDM;
> bd0->mode.status = BD_DONE | BD_INTR | BD_WRAP | BD_EXTD;
> bd0->mode.count = sizeof(*context) / 4;
> @@ -692,6 +699,8 @@ static int sdma_load_context(struct sdma_channel *sdmac)
>
> ret = sdma_run_channel(&sdma->channel[0]);
>
> + mutex_unlock(&sdma->channel0_mutex);
> +
This sdma_load_context() is called from various ->prep() contexts.
What guarantees are there that we can sleep in these contexts? At
least ->prep_memcpy() might be called in a atomic context. I have
been assuming the same for all prep routines across archs.
--
Dan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/