linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] DMA: TXx9 Soc DMA Controller driver (v2)

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DMA: TXx9 Soc DMA Controller driver (v2)
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:05:15 -0700
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zE/hWJaapbRCOyVBDPldgBSoy0y1GMxnodxQ76uCoBA=; b=AUw+SyqppjYQblPFoFBVLHMvuHxxRzjMy24Wj80BjnYtMOl0Nc0uNb90VGSy5epo3g G2kDThpDkS2pjLLyAZ+nBzjRkAlLcxpmX3QgaL334ctbgtM3fARJ35kacl6CgaOMQvUm DrgpxDjr/L+csz+Xj2Hk2CJc9UEFoVvJBNfwU=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=QRr2n/qEAc++HWHdlcIPexKTofH3/etDl9nB3xi79syey03kCoMihaOSTbEK2hGKTz mM5BKfFhIrjQO/JyUpTviPdzrFZE1If0Uwf1NErmjaJZDvTHzyZelzpWHznmUXqxKlbP hOT9Ql5rWObXkEF4pbEQxWFmiNFseNdhdat+w=
In-reply-to: <1239033288-3086-1-git-send-email-anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1239033288-3086-1-git-send-email-anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> This patch adds support for the integrated DMAC of the TXx9 family.
>
> Signed-off-by: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
> ---

Not quite "ackable" yet...

> +#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_TX49XX
> +#define TXX9_DMA_MAY_HAVE_64BIT_REGS
> +#define TXX9_DMA_HAVE_CCR_LE
> +#define TXX9_DMA_HAVE_SMPCHN
> +#define TXX9_DMA_HAVE_IRQ_PER_CHAN
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef TXX9_DMA_HAVE_SMPCHN
> +#define TXX9_DMA_USE_SIMPLE_CHAIN
> +#endif
> +

There seems to be a lot of ifdef magic in the code based on these
defines.  Can we move this magic and some of the pure definitions to
drivers/dma/txx9dmac.h?  (See the "#ifdefs are ugly" section of
Documentation/SubmittingPatches)

> +static struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *
> +txx9dmac_prep_dma_memcpy(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_addr_t dest, dma_addr_t 
> src,
> +               size_t len, unsigned long flags)
[..]
> +               if (!first) {
> +                       first = desc;
> +               } else {
> +                       desc_write_CHAR(dc, prev, desc->txd.phys);
> +                       dma_sync_single_for_device(chan2parent(&dc->chan),
> +                                       prev->txd.phys, ddev->descsize,
> +                                       DMA_TO_DEVICE);
> +                       list_add_tail(&desc->desc_node,
> +                                       &first->txd.tx_list);
> +               }

Is there a reason to keep f'irst' off of the tx_list?  It seems like
you could simplify this logic and get rid of the scary looking
list_splice followed by list_add in txx9dmac_desc_put.  It also seems
odd that the descriptors on tx_list are not reachable from the
dc->queue list after a submit... but maybe I am missing a subtle
detail?

Regards,
Dan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>