From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751398AbeFDPrC (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:47:02 -0400 Received: from esa2.microchip.iphmx.com ([68.232.149.84]:31984 "EHLO esa2.microchip.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750950AbeFDPrA (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:47:00 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,476,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="14833495" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: raw: atmel: add module param to avoid using dma To: Peter Rosin , Nicolas Ferre , Ludovic Desroches CC: Alexandre Belloni , Marek Vasut , Josh Wu , Cyrille Pitchen , , Boris Brezillon , , Richard Weinberger , Brian Norris , David Woodhouse , , Eugen Hristev References: <20180329131054.22506-1-peda@axentia.se> <20180329153322.5e2fc1e7@bbrezillon> <20180329154416.5c1a0013@bbrezillon> <20180402142249.7e076a64@bbrezillon> <20180402212843.164d5d21@bbrezillon> <20180402222020.1d344c14@bbrezillon> <20180403091813.5fb5c18c@bbrezillon> <959d826d-1a98-ca22-acee-a4548427fcd3@microchip.com> <024079cb-77ad-9c48-e370-e6e8f2de171b@axentia.se> <9c496531-f7b6-4b9d-dd51-0bfb68ead303@axentia.se> From: Tudor Ambarus Message-ID: <28c58ca3-d8ca-7195-3aa2-10d7c703dd65@microchip.com> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 18:46:56 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Peter, On 05/28/2018 01:10 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: [cut] > So, I think I want either > > A) the NAND controller to use master 1 DMAC0/IF0 (i.e. slave 8 DDR2 port 2) and > the LCDC to use master 9 (i.e. slave 9 DDR2 Port 3) > > or > > B) the NAND controller to use master 2 DMAC0/IF1 (i.e. slave 7 DDR2 port 1, and > possibly slave 9 DDR2 port 3 (if my previous findings are relevant) and the > LCDC to use master 8 (i.e. slave 8 DDR2 Port 2) My understanding is that "Table 14-3. Master to Slave Access" describes what connections are allowed between the masters and slaves, while the PRxSy registers just set the priorities. What happens when you assign the highest priority to a master to slave connection that is not allowed? Probably it is ignored, but I'll check with the hardware team. So I expect that the NAND controller can not use DDR2 port 3 regardless of the priority set. [cut] > So, output is as expected and I believe that the patch makes the NAND DMA > accesses use master 2 DMAC0/IF1 and are thus forced to use slave 7 DDR2 Port 1 > (and possibly 9). The LCDC is using slave 8 DDR2 Port 2. So there should be no > slave conflict? > > But the on-screen crap remains during NAND accesses. No conflict, but you missed to dispatch the load on the LCDC DMA masters, if I understood correctly. So, I think we want to test the following: - NAND controller to use DMAC0/IF1 (slave 7 DDR2 port 1) - LCDC to use master 8 (slave 8 DDR2 Port 2) and master 9 (slave 9 DDR2 Port 3). Best, ta