Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:22:51 +0000 | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] ARM64: simplify dma_get_ops |
| |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:57:41PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 16 November 2015 18:39:41 Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:25:48PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > @@ -985,7 +977,7 @@ void arch_setup_dma_ops(struct device *dev, u64 dma_base, u64 size, > > > struct iommu_ops *iommu, bool coherent) > > > { > > > if (!acpi_disabled && !dev->archdata.dma_ops) > > > - dev->archdata.dma_ops = dma_ops; > > > + dev->archdata.dma_ops = &swiotlb_dma_ops; > > > > Why do we still keep the !acpi_disabled check here? If I remove it, the > > WARN_ON() above disappears. > > Ah, good. That must be my mistake then. This looks much better.
I merged this patch with the above change. Thanks.
> 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.
> 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?
-- Catalin
| |