lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v1 PATCH 1/2] of/pci: add of_pci_dma_configure() update dma configuration
On 12/22/2014 02:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 22 December 2014 12:46:12 Murali Karicheri wrote:
>> On 12/18/2014 05:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday 18 December 2014 17:07:04 Murali Karicheri wrote:
>>>> Add of_pci_dma_configure() to allow updating the dma configuration
>>>> of the pci device using the configuration from the parent of
>>>> the root bridge device.
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Set it to coherent_dma_mask by default if the architecture
>>>> + * code has not set it.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (!dev->dma_mask)
>>>> + dev->dma_mask =&dev->coherent_dma_mask;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = of_dma_get_range(parent_np,&dma_addr,&paddr,&size);
>>>> + if (ret< 0) {
>>>> + dma_addr = offset = 0;
>>>> + size = dev->coherent_dma_mask;
>>>
>>> Can you check one thing here? I believe the size argument as returned
>>> from of_dma_get_range is inclusive (e.g. 0x100000000), while the coherent
>>> mask by definition is exlusive (e.g. 0xffffffff), so the size needs to
>>> be adapted here. I haven't checked all the code here though, so I may
>>> be wrong.
>>
>> size returned by of_dma_get_range() is inclusive as you indicated. Fromt
>> the grep of dma-ranges in arch/arm/boot/dts, I see
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/keystone.dtsi: dma-ranges =<0x80000000 0x8
>> 0x00000000 0x80000000>;
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/keystone.dtsi: dma-ranges;
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790.dtsi: dma-ranges =<0x42000000 0 0x40000000 0
>> 0x40000000 0 0x80000000
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/integratorap.dts: dma-ranges =<0x80000000 0x0
>> 0x80000000>;
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7791.dtsi: dma-ranges =<0x42000000 0 0x40000000 0
>> 0x40000000 0 0x80000000
>>
>> So I guess I need to change the code to
>>
>> >> + ret = of_dma_get_range(parent_np,&dma_addr,&paddr,&size);
>> >> + if (ret< 0) {
>> >> + dma_addr = offset = 0;
>> >> + size = dev->coherent_dma_mask + 1;
>
> Right.
>
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + offset = PFN_DOWN(paddr - dma_addr);
>>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "dma_pfn_offset(%#08lx)\n", dev->dma_pfn_offset);
>>>> + }
>>>> + dev->dma_pfn_offset = offset;
>>>> +
>>>> + coherent = of_dma_is_coherent(parent_np);
>>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "device is%sdma coherent\n",
>>>> + coherent ? " " : " not ");
>>>> +
>>>> + arch_setup_dma_ops(dev, dma_addr, size, NULL, coherent);
>>>
>>> Basically, I would use limit the size argument we pass into
>>> arch_setup_dma_ops to the minimum of 'size' and 'dma_mask' here,
>>> after converting into the same format. We should make sure we do the
>>> same thing for platform_device as well, so it might be better to do
>>> it inside of arch_setup_dma_ops instead.
>>
>> Do you think following changes will work?
>>
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
>> @@ -2052,9 +2052,10 @@ void arch_setup_dma_ops(struct device *dev, u64
>> dma_base, u64 size,
>> struct iommu_ops *iommu, bool coherent)
>> {
>> struct dma_map_ops *dma_ops;
>> + u64 temp_size = min((*(dev->dma_mask) + 1), size);
>>
>> dev->archdata.dma_coherent = coherent;
>> - if (arm_setup_iommu_dma_ops(dev, dma_base, size, iommu))
>> + if (arm_setup_iommu_dma_ops(dev, dma_base, temp_size, iommu))
>>
>> If you agree, I will post v1 of the patch with these updates. Let me
>> know. I did some basic tests on Keystone with these changes and it works
>> fine.
>
> It's not exactly what I meant. My main point was that we need to limit
> dev->dma_mask to (size-1) here, but you are not touching that.

if you mean overriding the dev->dma_mask to min((*dev->dma_mask),
size-1), then I am getting the error "Coherent DMA mask 0x7fffffff (pfn
0x780000-0x800000) covers a smaller range of system memory than the DMA
zone pfn 0x0-0x880000) when the devices on Keystone tries to set the dma
mask. Something wrong and I need to look into the code.

> either change the two functions in which we first assign the dma_mask
> (platform and pci bus), or set it again in arch_setup_dma_ops (on each
> architecture implementing it), either way would work. Someone else
> might have a stronger opinion on that matter.
>
> For arm_setup_iommu_dma_ops, passing the original size is probably
> best.
>
> Arnd


--
Murali Karicheri
Linux Kernel, Texas Instruments


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-12-22 23:01    [W:0.041 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site