On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:50 PM Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> wrote: > > On 19/11/2018 14:18, Ramon Fried wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:02 AM Benjamin Herrenschmidt > > <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 2018-10-03 at 16:10 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >>>> - * Because 32-bit DMA masks are so common we expect every > >>>> architecture > >>>> - * to be able to satisfy them - either by not supporting more > >>>> physical > >>>> - * memory, or by providing a ZONE_DMA32. If neither is the > >>>> case, the > >>>> - * architecture needs to use an IOMMU instead of the direct > >>>> mapping. > >>>> - */ > >>>> - if (mask < phys_to_dma(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32))) > >>>> + u64 min_mask; > >>>> + > >>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA)) > >>>> + min_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS); > >>>> + else > >>>> + min_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32); > >>>> + > >>>> + min_mask = min_t(u64, min_mask, (max_pfn - 1) << PAGE_SHIFT); > >>>> + > >>>> + if (mask >= phys_to_dma(dev, min_mask)) > >>>> return 0; > >>>> -#endif > >>>> return 1; > >>>> } > >>> > >>> So I believe I have run into the same issue that Guenter reported. On > >>> an x86_64 system w/ Intel IOMMU. I wasn't able to complete boot and > >>> all probe attempts for various devices were failing with -EIO errors. > >>> > >>> I believe the last mask check should be "if (mask < phys_to_dma(dev, > >>> min_mask))" not a ">=" check. > >> > >> Right, that test is backwards. I needed to change it here too (powermac > >> with the rest of the powerpc series). > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Ben. > >> > >> > > > > Hi, I'm working on a MIPS64 soc with PCIe root complex on it, and it > > appears that this series of patches are causing all PCI drivers that > > request 64bit mask to fail with -5. > > It's broken in 4.19. However, I just checked, it working on master. > > We may need to backport a couple of patches to 4.19. I'm not sure > > though which patches should be backported as there were at least 10 > > patches resolving this dma_direct area recently. > > Christoph, Robin. > > Can we ask Greg to backport all these changes ? What do you think ? > > As far as I'm aware, the only real issue in 4.19 was my subtle breakage > around setting bus_dma_mask - that's fixed by 6778be4e5209, which > according to my inbox got picked up by autosel for 4.19 stable last week. > > Robin. Yep, 6778be4e5209 fixes the issue. Thanks a lot ! Ramon.
