About dma_sync_single_for_{cpu,device}

[karl.beldan@gmail.com]

Hi,


On our board we've got an MV78200 and a network device between which we
xfer memory chunks via the ddram with an external dma controller.
To handle these xfers we're using the dma API.

To tx a chunk of data from the SoC => network device, we :
- prepare a buffer with a leading header embedding a pattern, 
- trigger the xfer and wait for an irq
// The device updates the pattern and then triggers an irq
- upon irq we check the pattern for the xfer completion


I was expecting the following to work:
	addr = dma_map_single(dev, buffer, size, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
	dev_send(buffer);
	// wait for irq (don't peek in the buffer) ... got irq
	dma_sync_single_single_for_cpu(dev, buffer, pattern_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
	if (!xfer_done(buffer)) // not RAM value
		dma_sync_single_for_device(dev, buffer, pattern_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
	[...]

But this does not work (the buffer pattern does not reflect the ddram
value).
On the other hand, the following works:
	[...]
	// wait for irq (don't peek in the buffer) ... got irq
	dma_sync_single_for_device(dev, buffer, pattern_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
	if (!xfer_done(buffer)) // RAM value
	[...]


Looking at 
	dma-mapping.c:__dma_page_cpu_to_{dev,cpu}() and
	proc-feroceon.S: feroceon_dma_{,un}map_area
this behavior is not surprising.
The sync_for_cpu calls the unmap which just invalidates the outer cache
while the sync_for_device invalidates both inner and outer.

It seems that:
- we need to invalidate after the RAM has been updated
- we need to invalidate with sync_single_for_device rather than
  sync_single_for_cpu to check the value

Is it correct ?






Maybe the following comment in dma-mapping.c explains the situation :
/*
 * The DMA API is built upon the notion of "buffer ownership".  A buffer
 * is either exclusively owned by the CPU (and therefore may be accessed
 * by it) or exclusively owned by the DMA device.  These helper functions
 * represent the transitions between these two ownership states.
 *
 * Note, however, that on later ARMs, this notion does not work due to
 * speculative prefetches.  We model our approach on the assumption that
 * the CPU does do speculative prefetches, which means we clean caches
 * before transfers and delay cache invalidation until transfer completion.
 *
 */

Thanks for your input,
 
Regards,
 
Karl