On 3 December 2014 at 10:17, Padma Venkat <padma....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> [snip]
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = dma_cookie_status(chan, cookie, txstate);
>>>> + if (ret == DMA_COMPLETE || !txstate)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + used = txstate->used;
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pch->lock, flags);
>>>> + sar = readl(regs + SA(thrd->id));
>>>> + dar = readl(regs + DA(thrd->id));
>>>> +
>>>> + list_for_each_entry(desc, &pch->work_list, node) {
>>>> + if (desc->status == BUSY) {
>>>> + current_c = desc->txd.cookie;
>>>> + if (first) {
>>>> + first_c = desc->txd.cookie;
>>>> + first = false;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (first_c < current_c)
>>>> + residue += desc->px.bytes;
>>>> + else {
>>>> + if (desc->rqcfg.src_inc &&
>>>> pl330_src_addr_in_desc(desc, sar)) {
>>>> + residue += desc->px.bytes;
>>>> + residue -= sar - desc->px.src_addr;
>>>> + } else if (desc->rqcfg.dst_inc &&
>>>> pl330_dst_addr_in_desc(desc, dar))
>>>> {
>>>> + residue += desc->px.bytes;
>>>> + residue -= dar - desc->px.dst_addr;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> + } else if (desc->status == PREP)
>>>> + residue += desc->px.bytes;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (desc->txd.cookie == used)
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pch->lock, flags);
>>>> + dma_set_residue(txstate, residue);
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> }
> [snip]
>>>
>>> Any comment on this patch?
>>
>> Well it doesn't break audio, but I don't think it has the correct haviour
>> for all cases yet.
>
> OK. Any way of testing other cases like scatter-gather and memcopy. I
> verified memcopy in dmatest but it seems not doing anything with
> residue bytes.
>
>>
>> Again, the semantics are that it should return the progress of the transfer
>>
>> for which the allocation function returned the cookie that is passe to this
>
> May be my understanding is wrong. For clarification..In the
> snd_dmaengine_pcm_pointer it is subtracting the residue bytes from the
> total buffer bytes not from period bytes. So how it expects
> the progress of the transfer of the passed cookie which just holds period
> bytes?
>
>>
>> function. You have to consider that there might be multiple different
>> descriptors submitted and in the work list, not just the one we want to know
>
> Even though there are multiple descriptors in the work list, at a time
> only two descriptors are in busy state(as per the documentation in the
> driver) and all the descriptors cookie number is in incremental order.
> Not sure for other cases how it will be.
>
Yes.
Tracing the history ... I think we could have done without
04abf5daf7d dma: pl330: Differentiate between submitted and issued descriptors
The pl330 dmaengine driver currently does not differentiate
between submitted
and issued descriptors. It won't start transferring a newly submitted
descriptor until issue_pending() is called, but only if it is idle. If it is
active and a new descriptor is submitted before it goes idle it will happily
start the newly submitted descriptor once all earlier submitted
descriptors have
been completed. This is not a 100% correct with regards to the dmaengine
interface semantics. A descriptor is not supposed to be started
until the next
issue_pending() call after the descriptor has been submitted.
because the reasoning above seems incorrect considering the following
documentation...
Documentation/crypto/async-tx-api.txt says
" .... Once a driver-specific threshold is met the driver
automatically issues pending operations. An application can force this
event by calling async_tx_issue_pending_all(). ...."
And
include/linux/dmaengine.h says
dma_async_tx_descriptor.tx_submit(): set the prepared descriptor(s)
to be executed by the engine
so theoretically a driver, not starting transfer until
issue_pending(), is "broken".
At best the patch@04abf5daf7d makes the driver slightly more
complicated and the reason behind confusion such as in this thread.
-jassi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
