From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
To: Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya-linux@dsn.okisemi.com>
Cc: andrew.chih.howe.khor@intel.com, socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
margie.foster@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Pellegrin <chripell@fsfe.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yong.y.wang@intel.com,
kok.howg.ewe@intel.com, joel.clark@intel.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
qi.wang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v3] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add Flow control,
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:08:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CEE51CA.8010402@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <001b01cb8c98$d06aaa00$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2247 bytes --]
On 11/25/2010 01:03 PM, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:34 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote :
>> On 11/24/2010 01:09 AM, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 22, 2010 5:27 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>>>>>>> Still we have the busy waiting in the TX path. Maybe you can move the
>>>>>>>> waiting before accessing the if[1] and remove the busy waiting here.
>>>>>>> I can't understand your saying.
>>>>>>> For transmitting data, calling pch_can_rw_msg_obj is mandatory.
>>>>>> Yes, but the busy wait is not needed. It should be enough to do the
>>>>>> busy-waiting _before_ accessing the if[1].
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean we should create other pch_can_rw_msg_obj which doesn't have busy wait ?
>>>> ACK, and this non busy waiting is use in the TX path. But you add a busy
>>>> wait only function before accessing the if[1] in the TX path.
>>>
>>> The "busy waiting" of pch_can_rw_msg_obj is for next processing accesses to Message object.
>>> If deleting this busy waiting, next processing can access to Message object, regardless previous transfer doesn't
>>> complete yet.
>>> Thus, I think, the "busy waiting" is necessary.
>>
>> Yes, it's necessary, but not where it is done currently.
>> Let me outline how I think the TX path should look like:
>>
>> pch_xmit() {
>> take_care_about_flow_control();
>> prepare_can_frame_to_be_copied_to_tx_if();
>>
>> /* most likely we don't have to wait here */
>> wait_until_tx_if_is_ready();
>>
>> copy_can_frame_to_tx_if();
>>
>> /* trigger tx in hardware */
>> send_tx_if_but_dont_do_busywait();
>>
>> /* tx_if is busy now, but before we access it, we'll check tx_if is ready */
>> }
>
> This Tx path also has Read-Modify-Write for MessageRAM access.
> Do you mean Tx path shouldn't have Read-Modify-Write ?
Why do you Read-Modify-Write for TX? Naively speaking you just need to
push your Data into a Mail/IF/Whatever and push the send button.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-25 12:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-16 8:39 [PATCH net-next-2.6 v3] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add Flow control, Tomoya MORINAGA
2010-11-16 11:04 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2010-11-16 12:22 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2010-11-19 6:18 ` Tomoya MORINAGA
[not found] ` <4CE64167.2030405@pengutronix.de>
2010-11-22 5:05 ` Tomoya MORINAGA
2010-11-22 8:27 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2010-11-24 0:09 ` Tomoya MORINAGA
2010-11-24 12:34 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2010-11-25 12:03 ` Tomoya MORINAGA
2010-11-25 12:08 ` Marc Kleine-Budde [this message]
2010-11-25 12:34 ` Tomoya MORINAGA
2010-11-25 12:40 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CEE51CA.8010402@pengutronix.de \
--to=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=andrew.chih.howe.khor@intel.com \
--cc=chripell@fsfe.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=joel.clark@intel.com \
--cc=kok.howg.ewe@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=margie.foster@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qi.wang@intel.com \
--cc=sameo@linux.intel.com \
--cc=socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de \
--cc=tomoya-linux@dsn.okisemi.com \
--cc=wg@grandegger.com \
--cc=yong.y.wang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox