Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] i2c: tegra: Do not configure DMA if not supported

Kartik Rajput
2025-06-16T10:01:44Z

Thanks for reviewing the patch Thierry!

On Tue, 2025-06-10 at 10:28 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 03:04:17PM +0530, Kartik Rajput wrote:
> > On Tegra264, not all I2C controllers have the necessary interface
> > to
> > GPC DMA, this causes failures when function tegra_i2c_init_dma()
> > is called.
> >
> > Ensure that "dmas" device-tree property is present before
> > initializing
> > DMA in function tegra_i2c_init_dma().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kartik Rajput <kkartik@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > v1 -> v2:
> > * Update commit message to clarify that some I2C
> > controllers may
> >   not have the necessary interface to GPC DMA.
> > ---
> >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
> > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
> > index ebd51165c46b..c7237d26b813 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
> > @@ -448,6 +448,9 @@ static int tegra_i2c_init_dma(struct
> > tegra_i2c_dev *i2c_dev)
> >   if (IS_VI(i2c_dev))
> >   return 0;
> >
> > + if (!device_property_present(i2c_dev->dev, "dmas"))
> > + return 0;
>
> I know that you use the OF-independent variant here, but has this
> been
> tested on ACPI?

No, Tegra I2C driver does not support DMA with ACPI boot.

>
> Originally the intention behind this code was to get some sort of
> validation of the DT (i.e. dmas property is desired, so we want to
> flag
> if it isn't provided) with the fallback existing mostly just so
> things
> can operate in the absence (or if APB/GPC DMA isn't available for
> some
> reason).
>
> If we now solely make this depend on the availability of the DT (or
> ACPI) property, then we loose all of that validation. I suppose we
> have
> DT schema to check for these kinds of things now, but since we're not
> marking these properties as required, there's really no validation at
> all anymore.
>
> My concern is that if somebody's left out the dmas/dma-names
> properties
> by accident, they may not get what they were asking for and we have
> no
> hints to provide whatsoever. Maybe that's okay if we provide the base
> DT, which has been unmodified for a while.

Should I add an info print here, to indicate that we are missing the
"dmas" property?

>
> If that's what we want to do, it no longer makes sense to keep the
> IS_VI() check above, though, because that's just redundant now.

Ack, I will move this check above.

>
> Thierry

Thanks & Regards,
Kartik