lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Consider device limitations for dma_mask
On Fri 11 Jan 15:33 PST 2019, Doug Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 2:54 PM Bjorn Andersson
> <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Qualcomm SDM845 the capabilities of the UFS MEM controller states
> > that it's capable of dealing with 64 bit addresses, but DMA addresses
> > are truncated causing IOMMU faults when trying to issue operations.
> >
> > Limit the DMA mask to that of the device, so that DMA allocations
> > is limited to the range supported by the bus and device and not just
> > following what the controller's capabilities states.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > index 9ba7671b84f8..dc0eb59dd46f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -8151,11 +8151,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ufshcd_dealloc_host);
> > */
> > static int ufshcd_set_dma_mask(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > {
> > - if (hba->capabilities & MASK_64_ADDRESSING_SUPPORT) {
> > - if (!dma_set_mask_and_coherent(hba->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)))
> > - return 0;
> > - }
> > - return dma_set_mask_and_coherent(hba->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> > + u64 dma_mask = dma_get_mask(hba->dev);
> > +
> > + if (hba->capabilities & MASK_64_ADDRESSING_SUPPORT)
> > + dma_mask &= DMA_BIT_MASK(64);
> > + else
> > + dma_mask &= DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>
> Just because I'm annoying like that, I'll point out that the above is
> a bit on the silly side. Instead I'd do:
>
> if (!(hba->capabilities & MASK_64_ADDRESSING_SUPPORT))
> dma_mask &= DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>
> AKA: your code is masking a 64-bit variable with a value that is known
> to be 0xffffffffffffffff, which is kinda a no-op.
>

You're right, so I took a stab at reworking the patch, but we end up
with something:

u64 dma_mask;

if (!(hba->capabilities & MASK_64_ADDRESSING_SUPPORT)) {
dma_mask = dma_get_mask(hba->dev);
dma_mash &= DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
return dma_set_mask_and_coherent(hba->dev, dma_mask);
}

return 0;
}

Which makes me feel I need a comment here describing that what happens
in the 64-bit case (i.e. nothing). So I think the proposed form is
clearer, even though the compiler is expected to optimize away one of
the branches.

James, Martin, do you have a preference?

>
> ...other than the nit, this seems sane to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

Thanks,
Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-12 18:47    [W:0.104 / U:2.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site