Re: [PATCH] dma: omap-dma: add support for pause of non-cyclic transfers

[Peter Ujfalusi]

On 08/07/2015 01:36 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 08/07/2015 11:44 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 08/07/2015 11:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> This DMA driver is used by 8250-omap on DRA7-evm. There is one
>>> requirement that is to pause a transfer. This is currently used on the RX
>>> side. It is possible that the UART HW aborted the RX (UART's RX-timeout)
>>> but the DMA controller starts the transfer shortly after.
>>> Before we can manually purge the FIFO we need to pause the transfer,
>>> check how many bytes it already received and terminate the transfer
>>> without it making any progress.
>>>
>>> From testing on the TX side it seems that it is possible that we invoke
>>> pause once the transfer has completed which is indicated by the missing
>>> CCR_ENABLE bit but before the interrupt has been noticed. In that case the
>>> interrupt will come even after disabling it.
>>>
>>> The AM572x manual says that we have to wait for the CCR_RD_ACTIVE &
>>> CCR_WR_ACTIVE bits to be gone before programming it again here is the
>>> drain loop. Also it looks like without the drain the TX-transfer makes
>>> sometimes progress.
>>>
>>> One note: The pause + resume combo is broken because after resume the
>>> the complete transfer will be programmed again. That means the already
>>> transferred bytes (until the pause event) will be sent again. This is
>>> currently not important for my UART user because it does only pause +
>>> terminate.
>>
>> with a short testing audio did not broke (the only user of pause/resume)
>> Some comments embedded.
>>
>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Why stable? This is not fixing any bugs since the PAUSE was not allowed for
>> non cyclic transfers.
> 
> Hmmm. The DRA7x was using pause before for UART. I just did not see it
> coming that it was not allowed here. John made a similar change to the
> edma driver and I assumed it went stable but now I see that it was just
> cherry-picked into the ti tree.
> If you are not comfortable it being stable material I can drop it.

This change is needed for the UART DMA support if I'm not mistaken and this
mode is not really supported by older kernels, so having this to implement
something which is not going to be used in the stable kernels feels somehow wrong.

>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/dma/omap-dma.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/omap-dma.c b/drivers/dma/omap-dma.c
>>> index 249445c8a4c6..6b8497203caf 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/dma/omap-dma.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/dma/omap-dma.c
>>> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static void omap_dma_start(struct omap_chan *c, struct omap_desc *d)
>>>  	omap_dma_chan_write(c, CCR, d->ccr | CCR_ENABLE);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -static void omap_dma_stop(struct omap_chan *c)
>>> +static int omap_dma_stop(struct omap_chan *c)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct omap_dmadev *od = to_omap_dma_dev(c->vc.chan.device);
>>>  	uint32_t val;
>>> @@ -342,8 +342,26 @@ static void omap_dma_stop(struct omap_chan *c)
>>>  
>>>  		omap_dma_glbl_write(od, OCP_SYSCONFIG, sysconfig);
>>>  	} else {
>>> +		int i = 0;
>>> +
>>> +		if (!(val & CCR_ENABLE))
>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>>  		val &= ~CCR_ENABLE;
>>>  		omap_dma_chan_write(c, CCR, val);
>>> +		do {
>>> +			val = omap_dma_chan_read(c, CCR);
>>> +			if (!(val & (CCR_RD_ACTIVE | CCR_WR_ACTIVE)))
>>> +				break;
>>> +			if (i > 100)
>>
>> if (++i > 100)
>> 	break;
>> to avoid infinite loop?
> 
> Ah. So I forgot to increment the counter. A few lines above there is
> the same loop as a workaround for something. This is the same loop. I
> could merge the loop + warning if you prefer. to have those things in
> one place. I could also just increment i. Merging the two loops might
> be better.

The other loop is for handling the ERRATA i541 and the two loops can not be
merged since the errata handling also require to change in SYSCONFIG register.

> 
>>> +				break;
>>> +			udelay(5);
>>> +		} while (1);
>>> +
>>> +		if (val & (CCR_RD_ACTIVE | CCR_WR_ACTIVE))
>>
>> if (i > 100) ?
> 
> While that would work, too I think it is more explicit to the reader if
> you check for the condition that is important to you.

Yeah, I see that the errata handling is doing the same, fine by me.

>>> +			dev_err(c->vc.chan.device->dev,
>>> +				"DMA drain did not complete on lch %d\n",
>>> +				c->dma_ch);
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>>  	mb();
> 
> Sebastian
> 


-- 
Péter
--
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/