(sorry for the delay, I got distracted by other things)
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:50:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 November 2015 12:22:51 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> > > On a related note, we should also urgently fix the
> > > arch_setup_dma_ops() function to no longer ignore the base and size
> > > arguments. For dma_base, we can simply WARN_ON(dma_base != 0), so we
> > > can implement support for that whenever we need it,
> >
> > I think we should, at least until we implement support for
> > dev->dma_pfn_offset. I'm not sure about iommu though, maybe there are
> > working configurations with dma_base != 0.
>
> I think we can assume for now that all IOMMUs are similar to the
> ARM SMMU and don't need this.
>
> > > but for the size we need to prevent drivers from calling
> > > dma_set_mask() with an argument larger than the size we pass in here,
> > > unless the size is also larger than max_pfn.
> >
> > We have a default mask set up in of_dma_configure() based on size and
> > dma_base. Can we check the new mask against the default one?
>
> The size variable here is the mask that of_dma_configure() computes,
> though it is not a "default": it is whatever the parent bus can support,
> independent of additional restrictions that may be present in the
> device and that are set by the driver.
>
> Checking against that is what I meant above, see below for a prototype
> that I have not even compile-tested and that might be missing some corner
> cases.
>
> We actually have the option of swapping out the dev->dma_ops in set_mask
> so we don't have to go through the swiotlb code for devices that don't
> need it.
We could indeed have a lighter implementation that only does cache
maintenance but I guess this assumes that the device supports all the
physical address space. Swiotlb detects the masks and doesn't bounce the
buffer unless necessary, so the overhead shouldn't be that large.
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
> @@ -341,6 +341,31 @@ static int __swiotlb_get_sgtable(struct device *dev,
> struct sg_table *sgt,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int __swiotlb_set_dma_mask(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
> +{
> + /* device is not DMA capable */
> + if (!dev->dma_mask)
> + return -EIO;
> +
> + /* mask is below swiotlb bounce buffer, so fail */
> + if (!swiotlb_dma_supported(dev, mask))
> + return -EIO;
> +
> + /*
> + * because of the swiotlb, we can return success for
> + * larger masks, but need to ensure that bounce buffers
> + * are used above parent_dma_mask, so set that as
> + * the effective mask.
> + */
> + if (mask > dev->dev_archdata.parent_dma_mask)
> + mask = dev->dev_archdata.parent_dma_mask;
Is there any check for parent_dma_mask being supported by swiotlb? If
not, should we move the mask setting above?
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
