Dnia poniedziałek, 11 lipca 2011 o 15:47:32 Marek Szyprowski napisał(a): > Hello, > > On Saturday, July 09, 2011 4:57 PM Janusz Krzysztofik wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 at 16:59:45 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wednesday 06 July 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > Another issue is that when a platform has restricted DMA > > > > > regions, they typically don't fall into the highmem zone. > > > > > As the dmabounce code allocates from the DMA coherent > > > > > allocator to provide it with guaranteed DMA-able memory, > > > > > that would be rather inconvenient. > > > > > > > > Do we encounter this in practice i.e. do those platforms > > > > requiring large contiguous allocations motivating this work > > > > have such DMA restrictions? > > > > > > You can probably find one or two of those, but we don't have to > > > optimize for that case. I would at least expect the maximum size > > > of the allocation to be smaller than the DMA limit for these, > > > and consequently mandate that they define a sufficiently large > > > CONSISTENT_DMA_SIZE for the crazy devices, or possibly add a > > > hack to unmap some low memory and call > > > dma_declare_coherent_memory() for the device. > > > > Once found that Russell has dropped his "ARM: DMA: steal memory for > > DMA coherent mappings" for now, let me get back to this idea of a > > hack that would allow for safely calling > > dma_declare_coherent_memory() in order to assign a device with a > > block of contiguous memory for exclusive use. > > We tested such approach and finally with 3.0-rc1 it works fine. You > can find an example for dma_declare_coherent() together with > required memblock_remove() calls in the following patch series: > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-samsung-soc/msg05026.html > "[PATCH 0/3 v2] ARM: S5P: Add support for MFC device on S5PV210 and > EXYNOS4" > > > Assuming there should be no problem with successfully allocating a > > large continuous block of coherent memory at boot time with > > dma_alloc_coherent(), this block could be reserved for the device. > > The only problem is with the dma_declare_coherent_memory() calling > > ioremap(), which was designed with a device's dedicated physical > > memory in mind, but shouldn't be called on a memory already > > mapped. > > All these issues with ioremap has been finally resolved in 3.0-rc1. > Like Russell pointed me in > http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg127644.html, ioremap can > be fixed to work on early reserved memory areas by selecting > ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL Kconfig option.
I'm not sure. Recently I tried to refresh my now 7 months old patch in which I used that 'memblock_remove() then dma_declare_coherent_memery()' method[1]. It was different from your S5P MFC example in that it didn't punch any holes in the system memory, only stole a block of SDRAM from its tail. But Russell reminded me again: "we should not be mapping SDRAM using device mappings."[2]. Would defining ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL (even if it was justified) make any diference in my case? I don't think so. Wnat I think, after Russell, is that we still need that obligatory ioremap() removed from dma_declare_coherent_memory(), or made it optional, or a separate dma_declare_coherent_memory()-like function without (obligatory) ioremap() provided by the DMA API, in order to get the dma_declare_coherent_memery() method being accepted without any reservations when used inside arch/arm, I'm afraid. Thanks, Janusz [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-December/034644.html [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-June/052488.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
