Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] mtd: rawnand: meson: add support for Amlogic NAND flash controller | From | Liang Yang <> | Date | Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:25:07 +0800 |
| |
Hi Boris,
I have implemented dma access base on these helpers you provided below. we prepare to send v7 version now, so when will these helpers be pushed?
On 2018/11/13 1:45, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:54:16 +0100 > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote: > >> +Wolfram to give some inputs on the DMA issue. >> >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:13:51 +0100 >> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote on Tue, 6 Nov 2018 >>> 11:22:06 +0100: >>> >>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 18:00:37 +0800 >>>> Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2018/11/6 17:28, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:08:00 +0800 >>>>>> Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2018/11/5 23:53, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 00:42:21 +0800 >>>>>>>> Jianxin Pan <jianxin.pan@amlogic.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +static inline u8 meson_nfc_read_byte(struct mtd_info *mtd) >>>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>>> + struct nand_chip *nand = mtd_to_nand(mtd); >>>>>>>>> + struct meson_nfc *nfc = nand_get_controller_data(nand); >>>>>>>>> + u32 cmd; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + cmd = nfc->param.chip_select | NFC_CMD_DRD | 0; >>>>>>>>> + writel(cmd, nfc->reg_base + NFC_REG_CMD); >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + meson_nfc_drain_cmd(nfc); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You probably don't want to drain the FIFO every time you read a byte on >>>>>>>> the bus, and I guess the INPUT FIFO is at least as big as the CMD >>>>>>>> FIFO, right? If that's the case, you should queue as much DRD cmd as >>>>>>>> possible and only sync when the user explicitly requests it or when >>>>>>>> the INPUT/READ FIFO is full. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Register 'NFC_REG_BUF' can holds only 4 bytes, also DRD sends only one >>>>>>> nand cycle to read one byte and covers the 1st byte every time reading. >>>>>>> i think nfc controller is faster than nand cycle, but really it is not >>>>>>> high efficiency when reading so many bytes once. >>>>>>> Or use dma command here like read_page and read_page_raw. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep, that's also an alternative, though you'll have to make sure the >>>>>> buffer passed through the nand_op_inst is DMA-safe, and use a bounce >>>>>> buffer when that's not the case. >>>>>> >>>>> ok, i will try dma here. >>>> >>>> We should probably expose the bounce buf handling as generic helpers at >>>> the rawnand level: >>>> >>>> void *nand_op_get_dma_safe_input_buf(struct nand_op_instr *instr) >>>> { >>>> void *buf; >>>> >>>> if (WARN_ON(instr->type != NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR)) >>>> return NULL; >>>> >>>> if (virt_addr_valid(instr->data.in) && >>>> !object_is_on_stack(instr->data.buf.in)) >>>> return instr->data.buf.in; >>>> >>>> return kzalloc(instr->data.len, GFP_KERNEL); >>>> } >>>> >>>> void nand_op_put_dma_safe_input_buf(struct nand_op_instr *instr, >>>> void *buf) >>>> { >>>> if (WARN_ON(instr->type != NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR) || >>>> WARN_ON(!buf)) >>>> return; >>>> >>>> if (buf == instr->data.buf.in) >>>> return; >>>> >>>> memcpy(instr->data.buf.in, buf, instr->data.len); >>>> kfree(buf); >>>> } >>>> >>>> const void *nand_op_get_dma_safe_output_buf(struct nand_op_instr *instr) >>>> { >>>> void *buf; >>>> >>>> if (WARN_ON(instr->type != NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR)) >>>> return NULL; >>>> >>>> if (virt_addr_valid(instr->data.out) && >>>> !object_is_on_stack(instr->data.buf.out)) >>>> return instr->data.buf.out; >>>> >>>> return kmemdup(instr->data.buf.out, GFP_KERNEL); >>>> } >>>> >>>> void nand_op_put_dma_safe_output_buf(struct nand_op_instr *instr, >>>> void *buf) >>>> { >>>> if (WARN_ON(instr->type != NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR) || >>>> WARN_ON(!buf)) >>>> return; >>>> >>>> if (buf != instr->data.buf.out) >>>> kfree(buf); >>>> } >>> >>> Not that I am against such function, but maybe they should come with >>> comments stating that there is no reliable way to find if a buffer is >>> DMA-able at runtime and these are just sanity checks (ie. required, but >>> probably not enough). >> >> It's not 100% reliable, but it should cover most cases. Note that the >> NAND framework already uses virt_addr_valid() to decide when to use its >> internal bounce buffer, so this should be fixed too if we want a fully >> reliable solution. >> >>> This is my understanding of Wolfram's recent talk >>> at ELCE [1]. >> >> Yes, you're right, but the NAND framework does not provide any guarantee >> on the buf passed to ->exec_op() simply because the MTD layer does not >> provide such a guarantee. Reworking that to match how the i2c framework >> handles it is possible (with a flag set when the buffer is known to be >> DMA-safe), but it requires rewriting all MTD users if we want to keep >> decent perfs (the amount of data transfered to a flash is an order of >> magnitude bigger than what you usually receive/send from/to an I2C >> device). Also, I'm not even sure the DMA_SAFE flag covers all weird >> cases like the "DMA engine embedded in the controller is not able to >> access the whole physical memory range" one. > > I forgot that this problem was handled at dma_map time (a bounce > buffer is allocated if needed, and this decision is based on > dev->dma_mask). > >> So ideally we should have >> something that checks if a pointer is DMA-safe at the device level and >> then at the arch level. >> >> A temporary solution would be to add a hook at the nand_controller >> level: >> >> bool (*buf_is_dma_safe)(struct nand_chip *chip, void *buf, >> size_t len); >> >> And then fallback to the default implementation when it's not >> implemented: >> >> static bool nand_buf_is_dma_safe(struct nand_chip *chip, void *buf, >> size_t len) >> { >> if (chip->controller->ops && chip->controller->ops->is_dma_safe) >> return chip->controller->ops->is_dma_safe(chip, buf, >> len); >> >> return virt_addr_valid(buf) && !object_is_on_stack(buf); >> } >> >>> I suppose using the CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG option could help >>> more reliably to find such issues. >> >> Actually, the problem is not only about detecting offenders but being >> able to detect when a buffer is not DMA-safe at runtime in order to >> allocate/use a bounce buffer. > > . >
| |