lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/7] of: configure the platform device dma parameters
On Friday 02 May 2014 05:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 01 May 2014 14:12:10 Grant Likely wrote:
>>>> I've got two concerns here. of_dma_get_range() retrieves only the first
>>>> tuple from the dma-ranges property, but it is perfectly valid for
>>>> dma-ranges to contain multiple tuples. How should we handle it if a
>>>> device has multiple ranges it can DMA from?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We've not found any cases in current Linux where more than one dma-ranges
>>> would be used. Moreover, The MM (definitely for ARM) isn't supported such
>>> cases at all (if i understand everything right).
>>> - there are only one arm_dma_pfn_limit
>>> - there is only one MM zone is used for ARM
>>> - some arches like x86,mips can support 2 zones (per arch - not per device or bus)
>>> DMA & DMA32, but they configured once and forever per arch.
>>
>> Okay. If anyone ever does implement multiple ranges then this code will
>> need to be revisited.
>
> I wonder if it's needed for platforms implementing the standard "ARM memory map" [1].
> The document only talks about addresses as seen from the CPU, and I can see
> two logical interpretations how the RAM is supposed to be visible from a device:
> either all RAM would be visible contiguously at DMA address zero, or everything
> would be visible at the same physical address as the CPU sees it.
>
> If anyone picks the first interpretation, we will have to implement that
> in Linux. We can of course hope that all hardware designs follow the second
> interpretation, which would be more convenient for us here.
>
not sure if I got your point correctly but DMA address 0 isn't used as DRAM start in
any of the ARM SOC today, mainly because of the boot architecture where address 0 is
typically used by ROM code. RAM start will be at some offset always and hence I
believe ARM SOCs will follow second interpretation. This was one of the main reason
we ended up fixing the max*pfn stuff.
26ba47b {ARM: 7805/1: mm: change max*pfn to include the physical offset of memory}

>
> [1] http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0001c/DEN0001C_principles_of_arm_memory_maps.pdf
>

Regards,
Santosh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-02 15:41    [W:0.126 / U:0.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site