Re: [PATCH] lib/scatterlist: introduce sg_nents_for_dma() helper

[Ardelean, Alexandru]

On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 11:46 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> [External]
> 
> 
> +Cc Vinod
> 
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 11:45 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:51 AM Alexandru Ardelean
> > <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Sometimes the user needs to split each entry on the mapped scatter
> > > list
> > > due to DMA length constrains. This helper returns a number of
> > > entities
> > > assuming that each of them is not bigger than supplied maximum
> > > length.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Hmm... Usually we don't accept generic API without users.
> > Do you have any use case in mind?

Yep: this one:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10814527/

But, I can rework this patch to work without the helper.

> > 
> > > Patch was sent in 2016 initially to the DMA engine sub-system.
> > > Link:
> > >   https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9389821/
> > > This was part of a larger series:
> > >   
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-dmaengine/list/?q=sg_nents_for_dma&archive=both&series=&submitter=&delegate=&state=*
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure if this is supposed to go into DMAEngine or
> > > lib/scatterlist.
> > > It doesn't look like lib/scatterlist is managed by DMAEngine, so (by
> > > using
> > > the `get_maintainers.pl` script) I'm sending this patch to this group
> > > of
> > > parties.
> > 
> > The problem the patch tried to solve is much deeper and correct
> > solution should be more generic, i.e.
> > each channel should provide a set of parameters, such as DMA segment
> > size, to the users (via DMA engine API) and users should prepare the
> > SG list according to the limits of the channel.
> > In that case we don't need to re-split/re-allocate given SG list at
> > all, which would simplify DMA slave drivers and their users.
> > 

I don't think I managed to follow [or find] the full length of that
discussion. Or, the conclusion wasn't that obvious to me, from what I
found.
I assumed this may have been dropped/forgotten.

In any case, I am fine with just reworking.

> > We discussed this topic back in 2016 with Vinod on LPC, but seems it's
> > not critical to solve. My case is to improve DMA performance for 8250
> > UART.
> > 
> > --
> > With Best Regards,
> > Andy Shevchenko
> 
> 
> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko