Re: [PATCH RESEND v5 00/24] dmaengine: dw-edma: Add RP/EP local DMA controllers support

From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc: "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	"Serge Semin" <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>,
	"Gustavo Pimentel" <gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"Jingoo Han" <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
	"Frank Li" <Frank.Li@nxp.com>,
	"Alexey Malahov" <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru>,
	"Pavel Parkhomenko" <Pavel.Parkhomenko@baikalelectronics.ru>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v5 00/24] dmaengine: dw-edma: Add RP/EP local DMA controllers support
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 14:28:43 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220825112843.4pbh37x6wemsdmmp@mobilestation> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ywc2dOk3ChH8M460@matsya>

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 02:14:36PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 25-08-22, 08:04, Serge Semin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:12:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > On 24-08-22, 17:07, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:15:26PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:53:08PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > I've tested this series on Qualcomm SM8450 SoC based dev board. So,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tested-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > > Not sure what is the merging strategy for this one but this series should get
> > > > > merged into a single tree. Since the PCI patch is touching the designware
> > > > > driver, merging the series into dmaengine tree might result in conflict later.
> > > > 
> > > > Right, the series
> > > > [PATCH v5 00/20] PCI: dwc: Add generic resources and Baikal-T1 support
> > > > is supposed to be merged in first. Then this one will get to be
> > > > applied with no conflicts. That's what I imply in the head of the
> > > > cover-letter.
> > > 
> > 
> > > I dont see a dependency of dma patches with PCIe patches? I guess they
> > > could go thru the respective trees now..?
> > 
> > There is a backward dependency: the PCIe patch in this series depends
> > on the eDMA patches and the patches in the patchset #3. So should you
> 

> What is the dependency...? Looking at the patches there does not seem to
> be one...

[PATCH RESEND v5 24/24] PCI: dwc: Add DW eDMA engine support:
|
+-> depends on the modifications done in the framework DW eDMA driver
| patchset, for instance the changes introduced in the patch
| [PATCH RESEND v5 22/24] dmaengine: dw-edma: Bypass dma-ranges mapping for the local setup
| make sure the dma-ranges property isn't taken into account for the
| Local CPU/Application setup (See it makes the DW_EDMA_CHIP_LOCAL flag
| used which is enabled for the eDMA embedded into the DW PCIe EP/RP).
| All the DebugFS-related and channels join updates are also required to
| make the DW eDMA driver working in the framework of the DW PCIe RP/EP
| device.
|
+-> at the very least depends on the changes introduced in the patchset #3:
| [PATCH v5 16/20] PCI: dwc: Introduce generic controller capabilities interface
| [PATCH v5 17/20] PCI: dwc: Introduce generic resources getter
| The patch at consideration adds CSR region request procedure in the
| method created and updated in these two patches.

There might be some other dependencies, but what I cited above must be
enough not to split the patchsets up between different branches
otherwise besides not properly working DW PCIe driver you'll have merge
conflicts.

-Sergey

> 
> > merge the eDMA patches via your tree, the later patch in this series
> > and the patchset #3 would have needed to be applied in there too. So
> > the patches can't be split up between different branches. Seeing all
> > the changes (including the DW eDMA part) concern the PCIe device (DW
> > eDMA is a part of either DW PCIe End-point or Root Port) and we
> > already agreed to merge all the changes via the PCIe tree, I would
> > stick to the previous settled agreement.
> > 
> > -Sergey
> > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > ~Vinod
> 
> -- 
> ~Vinod