On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 08:50:43AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:47:31AM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > Ok, I see that almost nothing actually uses dma_get_required_mask. So if
> > something did need >4Gb space, the IOMMU would allocate it anyway
> > regardless of
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:47:31AM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> Ok, I see that almost nothing actually uses dma_get_required_mask. So if
> something did need >4Gb space, the IOMMU would allocate it anyway
> regardless of dma_get_required_mask.
Yes. And with the direct mapping it also isn't an
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:51:03AM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:32:10AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:54:02PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > Do you want me to resend the patch as its own mail, or do you just take
> > > > it with a
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:51:03AM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> What I mean is, do there exist devices (which would necessarily support
> 64-bit DMA) that want to DMA using bigger than 4Gb buffers. Eg a GPU
> accelerator card with 16Gb of RAM on-board that wants to map 6Gb for DMA
> in one go, or
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:32:10AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:54:02PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > Do you want me to resend the patch as its own mail, or do you just take
> > > it with a Tested-by: from me? If the former, I assume you're ok with me
> > >
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:54:02PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > Do you want me to resend the patch as its own mail, or do you just take
> > it with a Tested-by: from me? If the former, I assume you're ok with me
> > adding your Signed-off-by?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> A question on the original
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:10:55PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig
>
> Do you want me to resend the patch as its own mail, or do you just take
> it with a Tested-by: from me? If the former, I assume you're ok with me
> adding your Signed-off-by?
Either way is fine
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:10:55PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:47:54PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:32:07PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:58:57PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:47:54PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:32:07PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:58:57PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 07,
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:32:07PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:58:57PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 07,
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:58:57PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:32PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > It doesn't boot
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:32PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > It doesn't boot with the patch. Won't it go
> > > dma_get_required_mask
> > > ->
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:32PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > It doesn't boot with the patch. Won't it go
> > dma_get_required_mask
> > -> intel_get_required_mask
> > -> iommu_need_mapping
> > ->
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:32PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> It doesn't boot with the patch. Won't it go
> dma_get_required_mask
> -> intel_get_required_mask
> -> iommu_need_mapping
> -> dma_get_required_mask
> ?
>
> Should the call to dma_get_required_mask in
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:34:48AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Arvind,
>
> can you try the patch below?
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> index 3f974919d3bd..52b709bf2b55 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> +++
Hi Arvind,
can you try the patch below?
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
index 3f974919d3bd..52b709bf2b55 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
@@ -3775,6 +3775,13 @@ static int intel_map_sg(struct device *dev, struct
Hi,
Commit 249baa547901 ("dma-mapping: provide a better default
->get_required_mask") causes an error on ehci-pci for me.
Either reverting the commit or disabling iommu=pt seems to fix this.
[9.81] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci-pci
[9.000755] ehci-pci
17 matches
Mail list logo
