Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dmaengine: gpi: Add Lock and Unlock TRE support to access I2C exclusively

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 13.11.2024 5:14 PM, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:
> GSI DMA provides specific TREs(Transfer ring element) namely Lock and
> Unlock TRE. It provides mutually exclusive access to I2C controller from
> any of the processor(Apps,ADSP). Lock prevents other subsystems from
> concurrently performing DMA transfers and avoids disturbance to data path.
> Basically for shared I2C usecase, lock the SE(Serial Engine) for one of
> the processor, complete the transfer, unlock the SE.
> 
> Apply Lock TRE for the first transfer of shared SE and Apply Unlock
> TRE for the last transfer.
> 
> Also change MAX_TRE macro to 5 from 3 because of the two additional TREs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c           | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  include/linux/dma/qcom-gpi-dma.h |  6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c b/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
> index 52a7c8f2498f..c9e71c576680 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>  /*
>   * Copyright (c) 2017-2020, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>   * Copyright (c) 2020, Linaro Limited
> + * Copyright (c) 2024 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
>   */
>  
>  #include <dt-bindings/dma/qcom-gpi.h>
> @@ -65,6 +66,14 @@
>  /* DMA TRE */
>  #define TRE_DMA_LEN		GENMASK(23, 0)
>  
> +/* Lock TRE */
> +#define TRE_LOCK		BIT(0)
> +#define TRE_MINOR_TYPE		GENMASK(19, 16)
> +#define TRE_MAJOR_TYPE		GENMASK(23, 20)
> +
> +/* Unlock TRE */
> +#define TRE_I2C_UNLOCK		BIT(8)

So the lock is generic.. I'd then expect the unlock to be generic, too?

> +
>  /* Register offsets from gpi-top */
>  #define GPII_n_CH_k_CNTXT_0_OFFS(n, k)	(0x20000 + (0x4000 * (n)) + (0x80 * (k)))
>  #define GPII_n_CH_k_CNTXT_0_EL_SIZE	GENMASK(31, 24)
> @@ -516,7 +525,7 @@ struct gpii {
>  	bool ieob_set;
>  };
>  
> -#define MAX_TRE 3
> +#define MAX_TRE 5
>  
>  struct gpi_desc {
>  	struct virt_dma_desc vd;
> @@ -1637,6 +1646,19 @@ static int gpi_create_i2c_tre(struct gchan *chan, struct gpi_desc *desc,
>  	struct gpi_tre *tre;
>  	unsigned int i;
>  
> +	/* create lock tre for first tranfser */
> +	if (i2c->shared_se && i2c->first_msg) {

Does the first/last logic handle errors well? i.e. what if we
have >= 3 transfers and:

1) the first transfer succeeds but the last doesn't
2) the first transfer succeeds, the second one doesn't and the lock
   is submitted again
3) the unlock never suceeds

Konrad