Re: Tearing down DMA transfer setup after DMA client has finished

[Måns Rullgård]

Mason <slash.tmp@xxxxxxx> writes:

> On 08/12/2016 13:44, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Mason <slash.tmp@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>>> On 08/12/2016 13:20, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only problem we have is that nobody envisioned hardware where the
>>>> dma engine indicates completion slightly too soon.  I suspect there's a
>>>> fifo or such somewhere, and the interrupt is triggered when the last
>>>> byte has been placed in the fifo rather than when it has been removed
>>>> which would have been more correct.
>>>
>>> As I (tried to) explain here:
>>> https://marc.info/?l=dmaengine&m=148007808418242&w=2
>>>
>>> A *read* MBUS agent raises its IRQ when it is safe for the memory
>>> to be overwritten (i.e. every byte has been pushed into the pipe).
>>>
>>> A *write* MBUS agent raises its IRQ when it is safe for another
>>> agent to read any one of the transferred bytes.
>>>
>>> The issue comes from the fact that, for a memory-to-device transfer,
>>> the system will receive the read agent's IRQ, but most devices
>>> (NFC, SATA) don't have an IRQ line to signal that their part of the
>>> operation is complete.
>> 
>> SATA does, actually.  Nevertheless, it's an unusual design.
>
> Thanks, I was mistaken about the SATA controller.
>
> On tango3 (and also tango4, I assume)
>
> IRQ 41 = Serial ATA #0
> IRQ 42 = Serial ATA DMA #0
> IRQ 54 = Serial ATA #1
> IRQ 55 = Serial ATA DMA #1
>
> But in the end, whether there is a device interrupt (SATA)
> or not (NFC), for a memory-to-device transfer, the DMA
> driver will get the read agent notification (which should
> be ignored) and the client driver should either spin until
> idle (NFC) or wait for its completion IRQ (SATA).
>
> Correct?

Yes, and when the client device is finished, the driver needs to signal
this to the dma driver so it can reuse the channel.  It's this last
piece that's missing.

-- 
Måns Rullgård