[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 01/11] asm-generic: add dma_zone_size
On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 15:45 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 03:46:52PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 09:09 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:58:09PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > > Some architectures have platform specific DMA addressing limitations.
> > > > This will allow for hardware description code to provide the constraints
> > > > in a generic manner, so as for arch code to properly setup it's memory
> > > > zones and DMA mask.
> > >
> > > I know this just spreads the arm code, but I still kinda hate it.
> >
> > Rob's main concern was finding a way to pass the constraint from HW
> > definition
> > to arch without widening fdt's architecture specific function surface. I'd
> > say
> > it's fair to argue that having a generic mechanism makes sense as it'll now
> > traverse multiple archs and subsystems.
> >
> > I get adding globals like this is not very appealing, yet I went with it as
> > it
> > was the easier to integrate with arm's code. Any alternative suggestions?
> In some discussion with Robin, since it's just RPi4 that we are aware of
> having such requirement on arm64, he suggested that we have a permanent
> ZONE_DMA on arm64 with a default size of 1GB. It should cover all arm64
> SoCs we know of without breaking the single Image binary. The arch/arm
> can use its current mach-* support.
> I may like this more than the proposed early_init_dt_get_dma_zone_size()
> here which checks for specific SoCs (my preferred way was to build the
> mask from all buses described in DT but I hadn't realised the
> complications).

Hi Catalin, thanks for giving it a thought.

I'll be happy to implement it that way. I agree it's a good compromise.

@Christoph, do you still want the patch where I create 'zone_dma_bits'? With a
hardcoded ZONE_DMA it's not absolutely necessary. Though I remember you said it
was a first step towards being able to initialize dma-direct's min_mask in


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-30 19:25    [W:0.125 / U:9.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site