[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/6] usb:udc:samsung: Zero copy approach for data passed to Samsung's UDC driver

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 at 08:29:49 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> > On Monday, February 03, 2014 at 12:06:59 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > Hi Marek,
> > > 
> > > > On Saturday, February 01, 2014 at 12:05:29 PM, Lukasz Majewski
> > > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 03:55:20 +0100
> > > > > 
> > > > > Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 at 01:16:27 PM, Lukasz Majewski
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > The Samsung's UDC driver is not anymore copying data from
> > > > > > > USB requests to data aligned internal buffers. Now it works
> > > > > > > directly in data allocated in the upper layers like UMS,
> > > > > > > DFU, THOR.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This change is possible since those gadgets now take care to
> > > > > > > allocate buffers aligned to cache line
> > > > > > > (CONFIG_SYS_CACHELINE_SIZE ).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Previously the UDC needed to copy this data to internal
> > > > > > > aligned buffer to prevent from unaligned access exceptions.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Test condition
> > > > > > > - test HW + measurement: Trats - Exynos4210 rev.1
> > > > > > > - test HW Trats2 - Exynos4412 rev.1
> > > > > > > 400 MiB compressed rootfs image download with `thor 0 mmc 0`
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Measurement:
> > > > > > > Transmission speed: 27.04 MiB/s
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Change-Id: I1df1fbafc72ec703f0367ddee3fedf3a3f5523ed
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You should use ROUND_UP(), not ROUND() throughout the patch.
> > > > > > Otherwise you might fail to flush/invalidate the last little
> > > > > > bit of data in some cacheline.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I might overlooked something, so please correct me if needed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I allocate buffers in gadgets which are aligned to cache line
> > > > > with starting address and its size is a multiplication of cache
> > > > > line size (so I will not trash data allocated next to it when I
> > > > > invalidate cache).
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the code I'm using ROUND to invalidate/flush more data than
> > > > > needed (ROUND(176, 32) = 192). I'm prepared for this since
> > > > > buffer in gadget is properly allocated (with
> > > > > DEFINE_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER() which uses roundup() internally).
> > > > 
> > > > The problem is in case you receive buffer which is aligned to
> > > > cacheline with it's start, but is [(k * cacheline_size) +
> > > > (cacheline_size / 2) - 1] big. I think it's unlikely, but if this
> > > > happens, you will get corruption, right ?
> > > 
> > > Let's suppose, that I will receive 2063B = [(64 * 32) + 16 -1] from
> > > UDC. If the passed buffer was exactly 2063 B in size, then we would
> > > have here a data corruption.
> > > 
> > > However this situation will not happen
> > 
> > _Should_ not happen ... I am absolutelly positive someone will be
> > bitten by such assumption. I think this assumption about buffer
> > alignment should really be documented somewhere.
> 
> I will add verbose commit message for this.

The commit message will get lost as time moves on, this should be clearly 
documented in some doc/ or code comment.

> > > since the buffer at gadget is
> > > allocated with DEFINE_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER() or is an aligned
> > > multiplication of cache line size (like 1MiB).
> > > 
> > > I think, that it is the responsibility of gadget developer to
> > > allocate buffers with proper alignment and size.
> > 
> > Document that please, I doubt this is documented anywhere, but it's
> > clearly part of the API. Also, some checks might be put in place for
> > the alignment , they might be in #ifdef DEBUG for all I care, but it
> > would be nice to have such a check, since I'm worried someone will
> > really be bitten.
> 
> I rely on the code embedded at cache_v7.c. It works and saved me a lot
> of trouble (since it always print "ERROR" when buffer alignment and
> size is wrong).
> 
> Also I think, that those checks shall be done at invalidate_* and
> flush_* cache routines, not at USB driver.

Not all CPUs are ARMv7 though.

> > > > You might actually want to
> > > > check for this condition and throw a warning in such a case.
> > > 
> > > The check is already implemented at ./arch/arm/cpu/armv7/cache_v7.c.
> > 
> > Yeah, for arm926ejs core as well. Maybe that check shall be shifted
> > into the cache management routine prototypes somehow ... not all CPUs
> > implement that check :-(
> 
> Maybe other ARM architectures shall have the cache management code
> updated to work in a similar way to cache_v7.c ?

Not all CPUs are ARM architecture ... there're others, you know ;-)

> > > It complains with "ERROR" message when start or end address is not
> > > aligned (that is how I've discovered the unaligned buffers at UMS).
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > > I understand your argument with trying to not trash data, but then
> > > > you will get a corruption during transfer, right ?
> > > 
> > > After applying those patches, the cache management would be
> > > performed when the USB request is completed (in the UDC).
> > > 
> > > The only requirement for UDC is the correctly allocated buffer at
> > > gadget.
> > 
> > Got it.
> 
> I will emphasize the need of correct buffer allocation at commit
> message and add some comment to UDC in the v2.