From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sandeep Nair <sandeep_n@ti.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
dmaengine@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma: Add Keystone Packet DMA Engine driver
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:21:35 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140318155135.GF1976@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4424649.TIey3uEAed@wuerfel>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 04:38:25PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 March 2014 20:54:44 Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 03:37:47PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> > > >> To simplify this bit more, you can think of this as DMA channels, flows
> > > >> are allocated and DMA channels are enabled by DMA engine and they remains
> > > >> enabled always as long as the channel in use. Enablling dma channel
> > > >> actually don't start the DMA transfer but just sets up the connection/pipe
> > > >> with peripheral and memory and vice a versa.
> > > >>
> > > >> All the descriptor management, triggering, sending completion interrupt or
> > > >> hardware signal to DMAEngine all managed by centralised QMSS.
> > > >>
> > > >> Actual copy of data is still done by DMA hardware but its completely
> > > >> transparent to software. DMAEngine hardware takes care of that in the
> > > >> backyard.
> > > > So you will use the dmaengine just for setting up the controller. Not for actual
> > > > transfers. Those would be governed by the QMSS, right?
> > > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > > This means that someone expecting to use dmaengine API will get confused about
> > > > this and doing part (alloc) thru dmaengine and rest (transfers) using some other
> > > > API. This brings to me the design approach, does it really make sense creating
> > > > dmaengine driver for this when we are not fully complying to the API
> > > >
> > > Thats fair. The rationale behind usage of DMEngine was that its the closest
> > > available subsystem which can be leveraged for this hardware. We can
> > > pretty much use all the standard DMAEngine device tree parsing as well as
> > > the config API to setup DMAs.
> > >
> > > I think you made your stand clear, just to confirm, you don't prefer this
> > > driver to be a DMAEngine driver considering it doesn't fully complying to
> > > the APIs. We could document the deviation of 'transfer' handling to avoid
> > > any confusion.
> > Yup, a user will just get confused as the driver doenst conform the dmaengine
> > API. Unless someone comes up witha strong argument on why it should be
> > dmaengine driver and what befits we see form such a model, i would like a
> > damengine driver to comply to standard API and usage.
>
> I think it would be possible to turn the QMSS driver into a library and have
> the packet DMA code use the proper dmaengine API by calling into that code.
>
> The main user of packet DMA (the ethernet driver) would however still have
> to call into QMSS directly, so I'm not sure if it's worth the effort.
Wouldn't that make clients use a standard API and also help in transaction
management by using existing infrastructure
--
~Vinod
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-18 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-28 22:56 [PATCH] dma: Add Keystone Packet DMA Engine driver Santosh Shilimkar
2014-02-28 23:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-02-28 23:44 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-03-05 2:26 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-03-03 9:34 ` Shevchenko, Andriy
2014-03-11 10:23 ` Vinod Koul
2014-03-11 19:50 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-03-12 16:00 ` Vinod Koul
2014-03-12 21:16 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-03-17 4:42 ` Vinod Koul
2014-03-17 19:37 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-03-18 15:24 ` Vinod Koul
2014-03-18 15:38 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-03-18 15:51 ` Vinod Koul [this message]
2014-03-18 16:22 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-03-18 16:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-03-18 16:19 ` Santosh Shilimkar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140318155135.GF1976@intel.com \
--to=vinod.koul@intel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dmaengine@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sandeep_n@ti.com \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).