Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] media: V3s: Add support for Allwinner CSI.

[icenowy@aosc.io]

<linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com>,megous@megous.com,Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
From: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
Message-ID: <B1E70BBD-8C1C-4381-8280-E7A368AE3DE6@aosc.io>



于 2018年1月29日 GMT+08:00 下午4:25:33, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> 写到:
>Hi Linus,
>
>On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 05:14:26PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> > +void sun6i_csi_update_buf_addr(struct sun6i_csi *csi, dma_addr_t
>addr)
>> > +{
>> > +       struct sun6i_csi_dev *sdev = sun6i_csi_to_dev(csi);
>> > +       /* transform physical address to bus address */
>> > +       dma_addr_t bus_addr = addr - PHYS_OFFSET;
>> 
>> I am sorry if this is an unjustified drive-by comment. Maybe you
>> have already investigate other ways to do this.
>
>It's definitely not unjustified :)
>
>> Accessing PHYS_OFFSET directly seems unintuitive and not good
>> practice.
>> 
>> But normally an dma_addr_t only comes from some function inside
>> <linux/dma-mapping.h> such as: dma_alloc_coherent() for a contigous
>> buffer which is coherent in physical memory, or from some buffer <=
>> 64KB that is switching ownership between device and CPU explicitly
>> with dma_map* or so. Did you check with Documentation/DMA-API.txt?
>
>So, I've discussed this with Arnd a month ago or so, because I'm not
>really fond of the current approach but we haven't found better way to
>do it yet.
>
>The issue is that all the DMA accesses are done not through the main
>AXI bus, but through a separate bus dedicated for memory accesses,
>where the RAM is mapped at the address 0. So the CPU and DMA devices
>have a different mapping for the RAM.

Maybe we can specify the offset in the DT as it's about how
the IP block is integrated to the SoC.

>
>I guess we could address this by using the field dma_pfn_offset that
>seems to be used in similar situations. However, in DT systems, that
>field is filled only with the parent's node dma-ranges property. In
>our case, and since the DT parenthood is based on the "control" bus,
>and not the "data" bus, our parent node would be the AXI bus, and not
>the memory bus that enforce those constraints.
>
>And other devices doing DMA through regular DMA accesses won't have
>that mapping, so we definitely shouldn't enforce it for all the
>devices there, but only the one connected to the separate memory bus.
>
>tl; dr: the DT is not really an option to store that info.
>
>I suggested setting dma_pfn_offset at probe, but Arnd didn't seem too
>fond of that approach either at the time.
>
>So, well, I guess we could do better. We just have no idea how :)
>
>Maxime