On 06/30/2013 10:46:18 PM, hongbo.zh...@freescale.com wrote:
From: Hongbo Zhang <hongbo.zh...@freescale.com>
This patch adds support to 8-channel DMA engine, thus the driver
works for both
the new 8-channel and the legacy 4-channel DMA engines.
Signed-off-by: Hongbo Zhang <hongbo.zh...@freescale.com>
---
drivers/dma/fsldma.c | 48
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
drivers/dma/fsldma.h | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma/fsldma.c b/drivers/dma/fsldma.c
index 4fc2980..0f453ea 100644
--- a/drivers/dma/fsldma.c
+++ b/drivers/dma/fsldma.c
@@ -1119,27 +1119,33 @@ static irqreturn_t fsldma_ctrl_irq(int irq,
void *data)
struct fsldma_device *fdev = data;
struct fsldma_chan *chan;
unsigned int handled = 0;
- u32 gsr, mask;
+ u8 chan_sr[round_up(FSL_DMA_MAX_CHANS_PER_DEVICE, 4)];
+ u32 gsr;
int i;
- gsr = (fdev->feature & FSL_DMA_BIG_ENDIAN) ? in_be32(fdev->regs)
- :
in_le32(fdev->regs);
- mask = 0xff000000;
- dev_dbg(fdev->dev, "IRQ: gsr 0x%.8x\n", gsr);
+ memset(&chan_sr, 0, sizeof(chan_sr));
+ gsr = (fdev->feature & FSL_DMA_BIG_ENDIAN) ?
in_be32(fdev->regs0)
+ :
in_le32(fdev->regs0);
+ memcpy(&chan_sr[0], &gsr, 4);
+ dev_dbg(fdev->dev, "IRQ: gsr0 0x%.8x\n", gsr);
+
+ if (of_device_is_compatible(fdev->dev->of_node,
"fsl,eloplus-dma2")) {
NACK; Figure out what sort of device you've got when you first probe
the device, and store the information for later. Do not call device
tree stuff in an interrupt handler.
+ gsr = (fdev->feature & FSL_DMA_BIG_ENDIAN) ?
+ in_be32(fdev->regs1) : in_le32(fdev->regs1);
+ memcpy(&chan_sr[4], &gsr, 4);
+ dev_dbg(fdev->dev, "IRQ: gsr1 0x%.8x\n", gsr);
+ }
Do these memcpy()s get inlined? If not (and maybe even if they do),
it'd be better to use a union instead.
Wait a second -- how are we even getting into this code on these new
DMA controllers? All 85xx-family DMA controllers use fsldma_chan_irq
directly.
@@ -1341,13 +1349,22 @@ static int fsldma_of_probe(struct
platform_device *op)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fdev->common.channels);
/* ioremap the registers for use */
- fdev->regs = of_iomap(op->dev.of_node, 0);
- if (!fdev->regs) {
- dev_err(&op->dev, "unable to ioremap registers\n");
+ fdev->regs0 = of_iomap(op->dev.of_node, 0);
+ if (!fdev->regs0) {
+ dev_err(&op->dev, "unable to ioremap register0\n");
err = -ENOMEM;
goto out_free_fdev;
}
+ if (of_device_is_compatible(op->dev.of_node,
"fsl,eloplus-dma2")) {
Not "fsl,eloplusplus-dma"? :-)
More seriously, if we're sticking with this "elo" naming, maybe
"fsl,elo3-dma" would be better. It would be odd to have "2" in the
name of the third generation of this hardware.
diff --git a/drivers/dma/fsldma.h b/drivers/dma/fsldma.h
index f5c3879..880664d 100644
--- a/drivers/dma/fsldma.h
+++ b/drivers/dma/fsldma.h
@@ -112,10 +112,10 @@ struct fsldma_chan_regs {
};
struct fsldma_chan;
-#define FSL_DMA_MAX_CHANS_PER_DEVICE 4
+#define FSL_DMA_MAX_CHANS_PER_DEVICE 8
struct fsldma_device {
- void __iomem *regs; /* DGSR register base */
+ void __iomem *regs0, *regs1; /* DGSR registers */
Either give these meaningful names, or use an array. Or both (dgsr[2]).
Or just get rid of this, since I don't see why we need DGSR1 at all, as
previously noted.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
