linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: host: inherit dma configuration from parent dev

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:53:36 +0300
From:   Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Leo Li <pku.leo@...il.com>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
        "linux-usb\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Fisher <david.fisher1@...opsys.com>,
        "Thang Q. Nguyen" <tqnguyen@....com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel\@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@....com>,
        Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: host: inherit dma configuration from parent dev


Hi,

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 5:14:28 PM CEST Leo Li wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Felipe and Arnd,
>> 
>> It has been a while since the last response to this discussion, but we
>> haven't reached an agreement yet!  Can we get to a conclusion on if it
>> is valid to create child platform device for abstraction purpose?  If
>> yes, can this child device do DMA by itself?
>
> I'd say it's no problem for a driver to create child devices in order
> to represent different aspects of a device, but you should not rely on
> those devices working when used with the dma-mapping interfaces.

heh, that looks like an excuse to me :-)

This will always be a problem for e.g. MFD, for example. Are you saying
MFD child-devices shouldn't be allowed to do DMA? It becomes silly when
you read it that way, right?

> This used to be simpler back when we could configure the kernel for
> only one SoC platform at a time, and the platforms could provide their
> own overrides for the dma-mapping interfaces. These days, we rely on

right, so we have a very old regression that just took a complex driver
such as dwc3 to trigger ;-)

> firmware or bootloader to describe various aspects of how DMA is done,

there's no DMA description in DT. Every OF device gets the same 32-bit
DMA mask and that is, itself, wrong for several devices.

> so you can't assume that passing a device without an of_node pointer
> or ACPI data into those functions will do the right thing.

That's not the problem, however. We can very easily pass along
ACPI_COMPANION() to any platform_device we want, but that's not enough
because DMA-related bits are passed along with archdata; but archdata
isn't generic in any way. Some arches (like x86) _do_ use it for DMA,
but some don't.

-- 
balbi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (801 bytes)