[U-Boot] [PATCH v8] usb: align buffers at cacheline

[puneets <puneets@nvidia.com>]

Hi Marek,
On Thursday 08 March 2012 03:36 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear puneets,
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> On Tuesday 06 March 2012 08:37 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>>>
>>> On Monday 05 March 2012 09:46:21 Puneet Saxena wrote:
>>>> As DMA expects the buffers to be equal and larger then
>>>> cache lines, This aligns buffers at cacheline.
>>> i don't think this statement is true.  DMA doesn't care about alignment
>>> (well, some do, but it's not related to cache lines but rather some
>>> other restriction in the peripheral DMA itself).  what does matter is
>>> that cache operations operate on cache lines and not individual bytes.
>>> hence the core arm code was updated to warn when someone told it to
>>> invalidate X bytes but the hardware literally could not, so it had to
>>> invalidate X + Y bytes.
>> Agreed, Will update the commit message in next patchset.
>>
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c
>>>>
>>>>    static void flush_invalidate(u32 addr, int size, int flush)
>>>>    {
>>>>
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Size is the bytes actually moved during transaction,
>>>> +	 * which may not equal to the cache line. This results
>>>> +	 * stop address passed for invalidating cache may not be aligned.
>>>> +	 * Therfore making size as multiple of cache line size.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	size = ALIGN(size, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN);
>>>> +
>>>>
>>>>    	if (flush)
>>>>    	
>>>>    		flush_dcache_range(addr, addr + size);
>>>>    	
>>>>    	else
>>> i think this is wrong and merely hides the errors from higher up instead
>>> of fixing them.  the point of the warning was to tell you that the code
>>> was invalidating *too many* bytes.  this code still invalidates too many
>>> bytes without any justification as for why it's OK to do here.  further,
>>> this code path only matters to the invalidation logic, not the flush
>>> logic. -mike
>> The sole purpose of this patch to remove the warnings as start/stop
>> address sent for invalidating
>> is unaligned. Without this patch code works fine but with lots of
>> spew...Which we don't want and discussed
>> in earlier thread which Simon posted. Please have a look on following link.
>>
>> As I understood, you agree that we need to align start/stop buffer
>> address and also agree that
>> to align stop address we need to align size as start address is already
>> aligned.
>> Now, "why its OK to do here"?
>> We could have aligned the size in two places, cache_qtd() and cache_qh()
>> but then we need to place alignment check
>> at all the places where size is passed. So I thought better Aligning at
>> flush_invalidate() and "ALIGN" macro does not
>> increase the size if size is already aligned.
> Actually I have to agree with Mike here. Can you please remove that ALIGN() (and
> all others you might have added)? If it does spew, that's ok and it tells us
> something is wrong in the USB core subsystem. Such stuff can be fixed in
> subsequent patch.
>
Sorry, I could not understand "(and all others you might have added)".
Do you want me remove any HACK in the patch which is using ALIGN or 
making stop address
aligned? The patch has only the above line to make stop address align 
and rest of the code makes
start address align. Just to confirm, you are fine with the start 
address alignment code in the patch?

> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut
Thanx & Regards,
Puneet

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------