[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080904215030Y.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:50:19 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: joerg.roedel@....com
Cc: fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, joro@...tes.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: remove the NULL device hack in dma-mapping.h
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:00:35 +0200
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:11:46PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 22:01:14 +0200
> > Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:04:23AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > > dma_alloc_coherent in dma-mapping.h has a hack to use
> > > > x86_dma_fallback_dev if a pointer to a device is NULL. Some of IOMMUs
> > > > don't need such hack. The hack also makes it difficult for IOMMUs to
> > > > make a proper decision because the hack hides the information.
> > >
> > > I don't think its the right way to work around shortcomings of the
> > > generic code in the architecture specific implementations. Especially
> > > when the generic code can be easily fixed like in this case.
> >
> > Well, the generic code should not have such work around.
>
> I don't see that as a workaround. It is the best what we can do to
> handle device dma_masks with the current Linux page allocator (if we
> don't have hardware dma translation).
It's a hack. What swiotlb should do is allocating from only swiotlb's
memory area (I agree with Andi about this). dma_mask is irrelevant for
it. The current swiotlb_alloc_coherent is a bit wrong though I don't
like to bother IA64 people.
> > > > +static void *x86_swiotlb_alloc_coherent(struct device *dev, size_t size,
> > > > + dma_addr_t *dma_handle, gfp_t gfp)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!dev) {
> > > > + dev = &x86_dma_fallback_dev;
> > > > + gfp |= GFP_DMA;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > This really should be checked in the generic x86 dma_alloc_coherent
> > > function.
> >
> > I don't think so. Any motherboards with the recent IOMMUs support ISA?
>
> Not that I am aware of. But as we both know there are people who do
> corner case tests with the dma-api functions like passing their own
> created devices or even NULL to it an look what happens :-)
That's the wrong way to use DMA API. We don't need to care about
it. The only reason we handle it now is for the ancient code.
> We have to handle this case in _every_ IOMMU implemention. So the
> generic function is the right place for this check, imho.
As I said, I don't think that every IOMMU need to handle it. Well,
it's a minor issue. I don't care much so handling it in a generic code
is fine. But as I pointed out in another mail, the fallback device has
DMA_32BIT_MASK so hiding it in dma-mapping.h makes it difficult to
make pci-dma.c work as before.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists