lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/5] ACPI/IORT: Add IORT named component memory address limits
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:20:43PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> On 2017/7/31 23:23, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >IORT named components provide firmware configuration describing
> >how many address bits a given device is capable of generating
> >to address memory.
> >
> >Add code to the kernel to retrieve memory address limits
> >configuration for IORT named components and configure DMA masks
> >accordingly.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> >Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> >Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> >Cc: Nate Watterson <nwatters@codeaurora.org>
> >---
> > drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> >index 67b85ae..b85d19f 100644
> >--- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> >+++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> >@@ -680,6 +680,24 @@ static const struct iommu_ops *iort_iommu_xlate(struct device *dev,
> > return ret ? NULL : ops;
> > }
> >+static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size)
> >+{
> >+ struct acpi_iort_node *node;
> >+ struct acpi_iort_named_component *ncomp;
> >+
> >+ node = iort_scan_node(ACPI_IORT_NODE_NAMED_COMPONENT,
> >+ iort_match_node_callback, dev);
> >+ if (!node)
> >+ return -ENODEV;
> >+
> >+ ncomp = (struct acpi_iort_named_component *)node->node_data;
> >+
> >+ *size = ncomp->memory_address_limit >= 64 ? ~0ULL :
> >+ 1ULL<<ncomp->memory_address_limit;
>
> Just a question here, if the IORT table didn't configure this
> value properly, will the device working properly? I'm asking this
> because in the table of IORT of D05, this value is set to 0 so far
> (SAS and network), but I can boot D05 OK with your patch set, not
> sure if any further issues.

Then you wonder why I wrote it as a separate patch. Why is that
value set to 0 (is that because that's the insane default ?) ?
It is a firmware bug and if things work ok with this patch applied
either this patch contains a bug or drivers override the DMA masks
to cancel out this patch effects.

Please fix the firmware.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-01 13:20    [W:0.076 / U:33.696 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site