From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ladislav Michl Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mtd: onenand: omap2: Unify OMAP2 and OMAP3 DMA implementation Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:15:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20171113121541.2tlezfjwk5bptakp@lenoch> References: <20171109091155.6a6azfvjarwvlfh2@lenoch> <20171109091529.x3pqqvbiywj5aulo@lenoch> <3d33265a-2520-2298-6068-f76a7257bfd0@ti.com> <20171110100443.zqk7uzxoaq4eyntk@lenoch> <20171110152423.GM28152@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-mtd" Errors-To: linux-mtd-bounces+gldm-linux-mtd-36=gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: Boris Brezillon , Tony Lindgren , Kyungmin Park , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Roger Quadros List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:22:12AM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > > On 2017-11-10 17:24, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > FYI, the gpio pin for onenand should not be in gpio mode. It should > > be used as external dma request line to automatically trigger new > > transfers like we do for tusb6010 dma. But of course it's possible > > that onenand has other issues too preventing the dma usage. > > My conversion to DMAengine is drop in replacement of the existing > implementation: memcpy w/o hardware synchronization event. > > But I think it should be possible to use HW sync (slave DMA) with the > src/dst_port_window in a similar way we do with the tusb6010. How do you want to synchronize it from OneNAND side? > But that can be done in a followup series, but what to do in case of old > DT where the dmas/dma-names properties are no there? These will not work anyway as they do not have compatible property. Also note, that DMA is currently not used, yet nobody complained. > Hmm, extending the dma_slave_map in mach-omap1/2/dma.c might work just fine. > > Having said that, there might have been a reason why the original > implementation was not using DMA request to trigger the memcpy... The > legacy omap-dma API would have allowed that as you kind of open code > things with much flexibility. That's mainly problem of OneNAND driver itself, not oma-dma. But do we really want to invest more time to this obsolete technology? Of course, I would love to see my 10+ years old boards running faster, but it seems unrealistic to me to get enough manpower to finish this task. ladis ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/