Re: Revert "dmaengine: pl330: add DMA_PAUSE feature"

[Frank Mori Hess]

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Marek Szyprowski
<m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I understand that pl330 doesn't support real PAUSE, but as it has been
> implemented since 2015 the limited support is perfectly possible - just
> to let serial driver to read the amount of data transferred.
>
> Please note that DMA engine documentation clearly states that the best
> residue granularity the driver might expect is BURST granularity. There
> is no way to get the information about the data which still sits in the
> DMA engine fifo when transfer is paused/terminated. This means that
> the serial driver should set maxburst = 1 if it is interested in
> getting exact number of bytes received/sent. With maxburst = 1 there
> is no such thing as data loose in the DMA engine fifo.

That is not my understanding of the dmaengine pause requirements, but
of course Vinod can speak authoritatively on this.  I also don't agree
that data loss cannot happen for single transfers.  It only becomes
less likely since there are fewer bytes in the dma controller fifo and
they stay there for a shorter period of time.  But even so, there is
nothing stopping the DMAKILL from killing the transfer thread after it
does a single byte load but before it does the associated single byte
store, as they are performed by separate instructions.  As far as your
serial port goes, the byte has been read by the host, even though it
never made it to memory, so it is gone forever.  The dma-330 does have
a load lock which prevents some operations from interrupting a
load/store combination, but in my observations DMAKILL does not
respect the load lock.


> 3. Samsung driver doesn't check if DMA engine supports PAUSE feature and
>     proper residue reporting granularity, so your revert simply breaks its
>     operation.

Oh, I was wrongly assuming you were talking about an 8250 based serial driver.

> I've checked other device drivers, which use pl330 DMA on Samsung SoCs and
> besides serial, none of them configure maxburst > 1. When I forced such
> configuration, none worked fine. I'm a bit confused what does it mean.
> Either none of the Samsung SoC integrated peripherals support real burst
> DMA transfers, or the PL330 in Samsung SoCs are somehow limited or
> dysfunctional. There is already a quirk in pl330 for broken FLUSHP, but I
> have no idea how to diagnose if this is the case or the problem is in the
> SoC peripherals. I can live with maxburst set to 1 in those drivers as the
> proper fix.

When the DMA-330 is instructed to do a peripheral burst transfer, it
ignores single transfer requests from the peripheral.  When it is
instructed to do a single transfer, it will do a single transfer in
response to either a burst request or a single request.  So unless the
peripheral actually supports burst requests, the transfer will just
wait forever for a burst request which never comes.

-- 
Frank