From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kernel@martin.sperl.org (Martin Sperl) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:30:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V2 3/8] dmaengine: bcm2835: use shared interrupt for channel 11 to 14. In-Reply-To: <20160113122621.GA11130@localhost> References: <1452187987-2605-1-git-send-email-kernel@martin.sperl.org> <1452187987-2605-4-git-send-email-kernel@martin.sperl.org> <20160113122621.GA11130@localhost> Message-ID: <56965178.7070700@martin.sperl.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 13.01.2016 13:26, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 05:33:01PM +0000, kernel at martin.sperl.org wrote: >> @@ -638,13 +666,21 @@ static int bcm2835_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> goto err_no_dma; >> } >> >> - for (i = 0; i < pdev->num_resources; i++) { >> - irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i); >> + for (i = 0; i <= BCM2835_DMA_MAX_CHANNEL_NUMBER; i++) { >> + if (BCM2835_DMA_IRQ_SHARED_MASK & BIT(i)) { > > Ideally this should be done thru DT data and not hard coded in kernel. I > dont think this assumption will hold good for next gen of this device, so > better to get this from DT! The ideal solution would be breaking the DT in such a way that we could define a register range and interrupt per dma-channel looking something like this: diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2835.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2835.dtsi index 83d9787..9526b91 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2835.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2835.dtsi @@ -31,8 +31,28 @@ dma: dma at 7e007000 { compatible = "brcm,bcm2835-dma"; - reg = <0x7e007000 0xf00>; - interrupts = <1 16>, + reg = <0x7e007f00 0x100>, /* status reg */ + /* dma channel 0-14 base addresses */ + <0x7e007000 0x100>, + <0x7e007100 0x100>, + <0x7e007200 0x100>, + <0x7e007300 0x100>, + <0x7e007400 0x100>, + <0x7e007500 0x100>, + <0x7e007600 0x100>, + <0x7e007700 0x100>, + <0x7e007800 0x100>, + <0x7e007900 0x100>, + <0x7e007a00 0x100>, + <0x7e007b00 0x100>, + <0x7e007c00 0x100>, + <0x7e007d00 0x100>, + <0x7e007e00 0x100>, + /* dma channel 15 uses a different base */ + <0x7ee05000 0x100>; + interrupts = <1 28>, /* catch all DMA-interrupts */ + /* dma channel 0-10 interrupts */ + <1 16>, <1 17>, <1 18>, <1 19>, @@ -43,9 +63,30 @@ <1 24>, <1 25>, <1 26>, + /* dma channel 11-14 share irq */ <1 27>, - <1 28>; - + <1 27>, + <1 27>, + <1 27>, + /* no irq support for dma channel 15 */ + < 0 >; + dma-names = "shared", + "dma0", + "dma1", + "dma2", + "dma3", + "dma4", + "dma5", + "dma6", + "dma7", + "dma8", + "dma9", + "dma10", + "dma11", + "dma12", + "dma13", + "dma14", + "dma15"; #dma-cells = <1>; brcm,dma-channel-mask = <0x7f35>; (or similar) This actually would allow us to make "brcm,dma-channel-mask" redundant, as we could remove those dma channels that are owned by the firmware directly from the list. That way we could also map other capabilities via the DT. It would also allow a transparent addition of additional dma channels with newer versions of the HW - mostly - by modifying the DT. But that would be frowned upon, so I had to come up with the approach taken, which makes the following assumptions: * the DT maps only the interrupts that are assigned to the HW block * the driver knows about the number of DMA channels in HW * the driver knows about the mapping of shared interrupts (11-14 share irq). It is not optimal, but at least it works with the least amount of change to the DT - and what about all those assumptions that we would need to hard-code to be backwards compatible to the DT without? I guess we could replace BCM2835_DMA_MAX_CHANNEL_NUMBER with: /* we do not support dma channel 15 with this driver */ #define BCM2835_DMA_MAX_CHANNEL_SUPPORTED 14 ... for (i = 0; i <= min_t(int, flv(chans_available), BCM2835_DMA_MAX_CHANNEL_SUPPORTED); i++) { So which way would you prefer this to go - I got another few days before I leave on vacation. Thanks, Martin