Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v3] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add Flow control, - Marc Kleine-Budde

From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya-linux-ECg8zkTtlr0C6LszWs/t0g@public.gmane.org>
Cc: andrew.chih.howe.khor-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
	margie.foster-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	yong.y.wang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	socketcan-core-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org,
	kok.howg.ewe-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	joel.clark-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	qi.wang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org>,
	Christian Pellegrin <chripell-VaTbYqLCNhc@public.gmane.org>,
	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg-5Yr1BZd7O62+XT7JhA+gdA@public.gmane.org>
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-a06+6cuVnkTSQfdrb5gaxUEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>

[-- Attachment #1.1: 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 #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 188 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
Socketcan-core-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core