Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dmaengine: Add a documentation for the dma controller API

[Maxime Ripard]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 05:26:28PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Vinod,
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:36:07PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 06:03:13PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > The dmaengine is neither trivial nor properly documented at the moment, which
> > > > means a lot of trial and error development, which is not that good for such a
> > > > central piece of the system.
> > > > 
> > > > Attempt at making such a documentation.
> > > 
> > > Did you miss Documentation/dmaengine.txt, lots of this is already covered
> > > there. But yes i would be really glad to know what isnt, so that we can fix
> > > that.
> > 
> > I didn't miss it. But I feel like it describes quite nicely the slave
> > API, but doesn't help at all whenever you're writing a DMAengine driver.
> > 
> > The first lines of the existing document makes it quite clear too.
> > 
> > There's still a bit of duplication, but I don't feel it's such a big
> > deal.
> And that made me think that you might have missed it.
> 
> I am okay for idea to have this document but it needs to co-exist one. No
> point in duplicating as it can create ambiguity in future.

The only duplication I'm seeing is about the device_prep* operations,
that get described in dmaengine.txt too.

There's also a minor one about struct dma_slave_config, but both are
rather generic and point to dmaengine.h, so I guess we won't be at
risk of any real ambiguity.

Do you see anything else?

> > What I'd like to do with the documentation I just sent is basically
> > have a clear idea whenever you step into dmaengine what you can/cannot
> > do, and have a reference document explaining what's expected by the
> > framework, and hopefully have unified drivers that follow this
> > pattern.
> Sure, can you pls modify this to avoid duplication. I would be happy to
> apply that :)

See above :)

Also, feel free to add anything that you feel like you keep saying
during the review. If mistakes keep coming, it's probably worth
documenting what you expect.

> > Because, for the moment, we're pretty much left in the dark with
> > different drivers doing the same thing in completetely different ways,
> > with basically no way to tell if it's either the framework that
> > requires such behaviour, or if the author was just feeling creative.
> > 
> > There's numerous examples for this at the moment:
> >   - The GFP flags, with different drivers using either GFP_ATOMIC,
> >     GFP_NOWAIT or GFP_KERNEL in the same functions
> >   - Having to set device_slave_caps or not?
> >   - Some drivers use dma_run_depedencies, some other don't
> >   - That might just be my experience, but judging from previous
> >     commits, DMA_PRIVATE is completely obscure, and we just set it
> >     because it was making it work, without knowing what it was
> >     supposed to do.
> >   - etc.
> 
> Thanks for highlighting we should definitely add these in Documentation

It's quite clear in the case of the GFP flags now, Lars-Peter and you
cleared up device_slave_caps, but I still could use some help with
DMA_PRIVATE.

> > And basically, we have no way to tell at the moment which one is
> > right and which one needs fixing.
> > 
> > The corollary being that it cripples the whole community ability to
> > maintain the framework and make it evolve.
> > 
> > > > +  * device_slave_caps
> > > > +    - Isn't that redundant with the cap_mask already?
> > > > +    - Only a few drivers seem to implement it
> > > For audio to know what your channel can do rather than hardcoding it
> > 
> > Ah, yes, I see it now. It's not related to the caps mask at all.
> > 
> > Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to move this to the
> > framework, and have these informations provided through the struct
> > dma_device? Or would it have some non-trivial side-effects?
> Well the problem is ability to have this queried uniformly from all drivers
> across subsystems. If we can do this that would be nice.

I can work on some premelinary work to do just that, and see if it
works for you then.

> > > > +  * dma cookies?
> > > cookie is dma transaction representation which is monotonically incrementing
> > > number.
> > 
> > Ok, and it identifies a unique dma_async_tx_descriptor, right?
> Yup and this basically represents transactions you have submitted. Thats why
> cookie is allocated at tx_submit.

Ok, thanks.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature