Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: mmc: mmci: add a property to disable DMA LLI

[Yann Gautier]

On 3/17/22 11:00, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 09:26, Yann Gautier <yann.gautier@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 3/14/22 23:43, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > "On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 2:52 PM Yann Gautier <yann.gautier@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On STMicroelectronics variant of PL18x, the DMA Linked Lists are supported
> > > > starting from revision v2 of the peripheral. But it has limitations,
> > > > as all the buffers should be aligned on block size (except the last one).
> > > > But this cannot be guaranteed with SDIO. We should then have a property
> > > > to disable the support of LLI.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yann Gautier <yann.gautier@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Actually I think this is present also on the ux500 variants. See:
> > > commit 2253ed4b36dc876d1598c4dab5587e537ec68c34
> > > "mmc: mmci: Support any block sizes for ux500v2 and qcom variant"
> > >
> > > Spot the variant data "dma_power_of_2".
> > >
> > > So whatever property you add
> > > to the variant data (not in the device tree please) should
> > > be added to the ux500 variants as well, it will *VERY* likely
> > > have a problem with LLI elements not being a power of 2
> > > as it is the ancestor of later STMicro variants.
> > >
> > > It might actually be the reason for some annoying WiFi error
> > > messages I have seen :/
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Linus Walleij
> >
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > The STM32 variant uses an internal DMA, and the DMA functions are in its
> > dedicated file. So I was planning to do the same as what is done in
> > meson-gx-mmc.c: using a bounce buffer to copy from/to in case DMA
> > constraints are not fulfilled. Not sure it can help for Ux500.

Hi Ulf,

> We already have a bounce buffer in mmci_pio_read(), but we need one in
> mmc_pio_write() too, which hasn't been implemented yet.

The idea is to keep using our internal DMA, and not switch to pio mode.

> > Ulf, before I send my new series (although it is not ready yet), would
> > you be OK with the bounce buffer idea?
>
> Yes, that works for me.
I have patches almost ready, I'll send that soon.

> On the other hand, it would be even better if we could specify the
> buffer limitations per mmc host instance, so upper layers (SDIO func
> drivers) could conform to these - and use better buffers, to achieve a
> better performance.

We've seen things that could be improved in the wifi driver. I'll check 
what could be done.

Best regards,
Yann
> > Best regards,
> > Yann
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe