Mostly ok, but some minor nits.
Andrew Grover wrote:
index 0000000..f2cc2d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/dma/cb_list.h
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* Extra macros that build on <linux/list.h> */
+#ifndef CB_LIST_H
+#define CB_LIST_H
+
+#include <linux/list.h>
+
+/* Provide some safty to list_add, which I find easy to swap the arguments to
*/
+
+#define list_add_entry(pos, head, member) list_add(&pos->member, head)
+#define list_add_entry_tail(pos, head, member) list_add_tail(&pos->member,
head)
+
+#endif /* CB_LIST_H */
Maybe this just adds fuel to the fire, given your code comment, but I
tend to think most people are used to
object_foo(object, other args...)
where the object in question is "the list". That would imply a
list_foo(head, others args...)
pattern.
As a side note, I have the same problem as you, WRT swapping the
list_add arguments. I've always thought that was the one big drawback
to Linus's otherwise elegant list implementation.
general nits:
1) docbook-able function headers, with useful documentation, would be
nice. Using libata as an example, even if I don't provide any useful
function description, I at least document the locking details/context
for each function.
2) more inline code commenting would be nice.
+ if (chan->device->device_alloc_chan_resources(chan) >=
0) {
+ chan->client = client;
+ list_add_entry_tail(chan, &client->channels,
client_node);
+ return chan;
+ }
device_alloc_chan_resources is a very long name. :)
+static void
+dma_client_chan_free(struct dma_chan *chan)
+{
+ BUG_ON(!chan);
+
+ chan->device->device_free_chan_resources(chan);
+ chan->client = NULL;
+}
ditto
+static void
+dma_chans_rebalance(void)
explanation of this function would be nice. remember to answer "how?"
and "why?", not "what?".
+{
+ struct dma_client *client;
+ struct dma_chan *chan;
+
+ list_for_each_entry(client, &dma_client_list, global_node) {
locking of dma_client_list?
+ while (client->chans_desired > client->chan_count) {
+ chan = dma_client_chan_alloc(client);
+ if (!chan)
+ break;
+
+ client->chan_count++;
+ client->event_callback(client, chan,
DMA_RESOURCE_ADDED);
+ }
+
+ while (client->chans_desired < client->chan_count) {
+ chan = list_entry(client->channels.next, struct
dma_chan, client_node);
+ list_del(&chan->client_node);
+ client->chan_count--;
+ client->event_callback(client, chan,
DMA_RESOURCE_REMOVED);
+ dma_client_chan_free(chan);
In general, this DMA_RESOURCE_REMOVED operation feels like a "yanking
the carpet out from under my feet" operation, something we should avoid
for object-lifetime reasons.
However in this case, AFAICS dmaengine.c completely controls object
lifetime, so I do not see a real problem. I'm just nervous. :)
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+struct dma_client *
+dma_async_client_register(dma_event_callback event_callback)
+{
+ struct dma_client *client;
+
+ BUG_ON(!event_callback);
+
+ client = kmalloc(sizeof(*client), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!client)
+ return NULL;
+
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&client->channels);
+
+ client->chans_desired = 0;
+ client->chan_count = 0;
+ client->event_callback = event_callback;
+
+ list_add_entry_tail(client, &dma_client_list, global_node);
+
+ return client;
Possible SMP bug here?
So far, in my code read, I was presuming that the caller was doing some
sort of locking on dma_client_list and dma_device_list. (Hint: need
locking docs for each function)
But if you are using GFP_KERNEL, it certainly appears that two callers
could race with each other when touching dma_client_list.
+dma_cookie_t
+dma_async_memcpy_buf_to_buf(
+ struct dma_chan *chan,
+ void *dest,
+ void *src,
+ size_t len)
+{
+ chan->bytes_transferred += len;
+ chan->memcpy_count++;
+
+ return chan->device->device_memcpy_buf_to_buf(chan, dest, src, len);
+}
+
+dma_cookie_t
+dma_async_memcpy_buf_to_pg(
+ struct dma_chan *chan,
+ struct page *page,
+ unsigned int offset,
+ void *kdata,
+ size_t len)
+{
+ chan->bytes_transferred += len;
+ chan->memcpy_count++;
+
+ return chan->device->device_memcpy_buf_to_pg(chan, page, offset, kdata,
len);
+}
+
+dma_cookie_t
+dma_async_memcpy_pg_to_pg(
+ struct dma_chan *chan,
+ struct page *dest_pg,
+ unsigned int dest_off,
+ struct page *src_pg,
+ unsigned int src_off,
+ size_t len)
+{
+ chan->bytes_transferred += len;
+ chan->memcpy_count++;
+
+ return chan->device->device_memcpy_pg_to_pg(chan, dest_pg, dest_off,
+ src_pg, src_off, len);
+}
+
+void
+dma_async_memcpy_issue_pending(struct dma_chan *chan)
+{
+ return chan->device->device_memcpy_issue_pending(chan);
+}
+
+enum dma_status_t
+dma_async_memcpy_complete(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie,
dma_cookie_t *last, dma_cookie_t *used)
+{
+ return chan->device->device_memcpy_complete(chan, cookie, last, used);
+}
Making these 'static inline' might be a good idea?
+int
+dma_async_device_register(struct dma_device *device)
+{
+ static int id;
+ int chancnt = 0;
+ struct dma_chan* chan;
+
+ if (!device)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ list_add_entry_tail(device, &dma_device_list, global_node);
+
+ dma_chans_rebalance();
+
+ device->dev_id = id++;
+
+ /* represent channels in sysfs. Probably want devs too */
+ list_for_each_entry(chan, &device->channels, device_node) {
+ chan->chan_id = chancnt++;
+ chan->class_dev.class = &dma_devclass;
+ chan->class_dev.dev = NULL;
+ snprintf(chan->class_dev.class_id, BUS_ID_SIZE, "dma%dchan%d",
+ device->dev_id, chan->chan_id);
+
+ chan->min_copy_size = DMA_DEFAULT_MIN_COPY_SIZE;
+ class_device_register(&chan->class_dev);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+void
+dma_async_device_unregister(struct dma_device* device)
+{
+ struct dma_chan *chan;
+
+ BUG_ON(!device);
+
+ list_for_each_entry(chan, &device->channels, device_node) {
+ if (chan->client) {
+ list_del(&chan->client_node);
+ chan->client->chan_count--;
+ chan->client->event_callback(chan->client, chan,
DMA_RESOURCE_REMOVED);
+ dma_client_chan_free(chan);
+ }
+ class_device_unregister(&chan->class_dev);
+ }
+
+ list_del(&device->global_node);
+
+ dma_chans_rebalance();
+}
+
+static struct workqueue_struct *dma_wait_wq;
+static LIST_HEAD(dma_poll_list);
+
+enum dma_status_t
+dma_async_wait_for_completion(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie)
+{
+ while (dma_async_memcpy_complete(chan, cookie, NULL, NULL) ==
DMA_IN_PROGRESS)
+ schedule();
1) Is it worth adding a loop above the 'while', which does
retries = 5
while (operation == in progress &&
retries-- > 0)
udelay(1)
2) at that point, perhaps replace schedule() with schedule_timeout(1).
WARNING: this might introduce too much latency, and be a bad idea.
+ return DMA_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+#if 0
+static void
+dma_poll(void *data)
+{
+ struct dma_completion *comp = data;
+
+ comp->status = dma_memcpy_complete(comp->chan, comp->cookie);
+ while (comp->status == DMA_IN_PROGRESS) {
+ comp->chan->device->device_arm_interrupt(comp->chan);
+ wait_for_completion(&__get_cpu_var(kick_dma_poll));
+ comp->status = dma_memcpy_complete(comp->chan, comp->cookie);
+ }
+ complete(&comp->comp);
+}
+
+enum dma_status_t
+dma_wait_for_completion(struct dma_chan *chan, dma_cookie_t cookie)
+{
+ enum dma_status_t status;
+ DECLARE_DMA_COMPLETION(comp, chan, cookie);
+ DECLARE_WORK(dma_wait_work, dma_poll, &comp);
+
+ BUG_ON(in_interrupt());
+
+ status = dma_memcpy_complete(chan, cookie);
+ if (status != DMA_IN_PROGRESS)
+ return status;
+
+ queue_work(dma_wait_wq, &dma_wait_work);
+ wait_for_completion(&comp.comp);
+ return comp.status;
+}
+#endif
is this for future use? never to be used?
+static int __init dma_bus_init(void)
+{
+ int cpu;
+
+ dma_wait_wq = create_workqueue("dmapoll");
dma_wait_wq is never used, due to #if 0
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+ init_completion(&per_cpu(kick_dma_poll, cpu));
+ }
+ return class_register(&dma_devclass);
+}
+
+subsys_initcall(dma_bus_init);
+
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_client_register);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_client_unregister);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_client_chan_request);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_memcpy_buf_to_buf);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_memcpy_buf_to_pg);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_memcpy_pg_to_pg);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_memcpy_complete);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_memcpy_issue_pending);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_device_register);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_device_unregister);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_async_wait_for_completion);
+EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(kick_dma_poll);
diff --git a/include/linux/dmaengine.h b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7b4f58b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
@@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
+/*******************************************************************************
+
+
+ Copyright(c) 2004 - 2005 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
+
+ This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+ under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
+ Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
+ any later version.
+
+ This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
+ ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
+ FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for
+ more details.
+
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
+ this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59
+ Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
+
+ The full GNU General Public License is included in this distribution in the
+ file called LICENSE.
+
+*******************************************************************************/
+
+
+#ifndef DMAENGINE_H
+#define DMAENGINE_H
+
+#include <linux/device.h>
+#include <linux/uio.h>
+#include <linux/skbuff.h>
+
+DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct completion, kick_dma_poll);
+
+#define DMA_DEFAULT_MIN_COPY_SIZE 16
+
+/**
+ * enum dma_event_t - resource PNP/power managment events
+ * @DMA_RESOURCE_SUSPEND: DMA device going into low power state
+ * @DMA_RESOURCE_RESUME: DMA device returning to full power
+ * @DMA_RESOURCE_ADDED: DMA device added to the system
+ * @DMA_RESOURCE_REMOVED: DMA device removed from the system
+ */
+enum dma_event_t {
+ DMA_RESOURCE_SUSPEND,
+ DMA_RESOURCE_RESUME,
+ DMA_RESOURCE_ADDED,
+ DMA_RESOURCE_REMOVED,
+};
+
+/**
+ * typedef dma_cookie_t
+ *
+ * if dma_cookie_t is >0 it's a DMA request cookie, <0 it's an error code
+ */
+typedef s32 dma_cookie_t;
More natural to use [signed] long? i.e. a machine int. Or _must_ this
match hardware somewhere?
+/*#define dma_submit_error(cookie) ((cookie) < 0 ? 1 : 0)*/
+
+/**
+ * enum dma_status_t - DMA transaction status
+ * @DMA_SUCCESS: transaction completed successfully
+ * @DMA_IN_PROGRESS: transaction not yet processed
+ * @DMA_ERROR: transaction failed
+ */
+enum dma_status_t {
+ DMA_SUCCESS,
+ DMA_IN_PROGRESS,
+ DMA_ERROR,
+};
+
+/**
+ * struct dma_chan - devices supply DMA channels, clients use them
+ * @client: ptr to the client user of this chan, will be NULL when unused
+ * @device: ptr to the dma device who supplies this channel, always !NULL
+ * @client_node: used to add this to the client chan list
+ * @device_node: used to add this to the device chan list
+ */
+struct dma_chan
+{
+ struct dma_client *client;
+ struct dma_device *device;
+ dma_cookie_t cookie;
+
+ /* sysfs */
+ int chan_id;
+ struct class_device class_dev;
+
+ /* stats */
+ unsigned long memcpy_count;
+ unsigned long bytes_transferred;
+ unsigned int min_copy_size;
very very minor nit, but it bugs me at least: the stats variables
strike me as overly long and verbose.
+ struct list_head client_node;
+ struct list_head device_node;
+
+ cpumask_t cpumask;
+};
+
+/*
+ * typedef dma_event_callback - function pointer to a DMA event callback
+ */
+typedef void (*dma_event_callback) (struct dma_client *client, struct dma_chan
*chan, enum dma_event_t event);
+
+/**
+ * struct dma_client - info on the entity making use of DMA services
+ * @event_callback: func ptr to call when something happens
+ * @chan_count: number of chans allocated
+ * @chans_desired: number of chans requested. Can be +- chan_count
+ * @port: upstream DMA port from the client's PCI device
+ * @channels: the list of DMA channels allocated
+ * @global_node: list_head for global dma_client_list
+ */
+struct dma_client {
+ dma_event_callback event_callback;
+ unsigned int chan_count;
+ unsigned int chans_desired;
+
+ /* TODO keep some stats */
+ struct list_head channels;
+ struct list_head global_node;
+};
+
+/**
+ * struct dma_device - info on the entity supplying DMA services
+ * @chancnt: how many DMA channels are supported
+ * @channels: the list of struct dma_chan
+ * @global_node: list_head for global dma_device_list
+ * Other func ptrs: used to make use of this device's capabilities
+ */
+struct dma_device {
+
+ unsigned int chancnt;
+ struct list_head channels;
+ struct list_head global_node;
+
+ int dev_id;
+ /*struct class_device class_dev;*/
+
+ int (*device_alloc_chan_resources)(struct dma_chan *chan);
+ void (*device_free_chan_resources)(struct dma_chan *chan);
+ dma_cookie_t (*device_memcpy_buf_to_buf)(struct dma_chan *chan, void
*dest,
+ void *src, size_t len);
+ dma_cookie_t (*device_memcpy_buf_to_pg)(struct dma_chan *chan, struct
page *page,
+ unsigned int offset, void *kdata, size_t len);
+ dma_cookie_t (*device_memcpy_pg_to_pg)(struct dma_chan *chan, struct
page *dest_pg,
+ unsigned int dest_off, struct page *src_pg, unsigned int
src_off,
+ size_t len);
+ void (*device_arm_interrupt)(struct dma_chan *chan);
+ enum dma_status_t (*device_memcpy_complete)(struct dma_chan *chan,
dma_cookie_t cookie, dma_cookie_t *last, dma_cookie_t *used);
+ void (*device_memcpy_issue_pending)(struct dma_chan *chan);
names feel a bit long
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
