[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130920144027.GG12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:40:27 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.linux@...il.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/51] DMA-API: dma: dw_dmac.c: convert to use
dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent()
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 05:26:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 22:55 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > This code sequence:
> > if (!pdev->dev.dma_mask) {
> > pdev->dev.dma_mask = &pdev->dev.coherent_dma_mask;
> > pdev->dev.coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> > }
> > bypasses the architectures check on the DMA mask. It can be replaced
> > with dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(), avoiding the direct initialization
> > of this mask.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
> > ---
> > drivers/dma/dw/platform.c | 8 +++-----
> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma/dw/platform.c b/drivers/dma/dw/platform.c
> > index e35d975..453822c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma/dw/platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma/dw/platform.c
> > @@ -191,11 +191,9 @@ static int dw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > if (IS_ERR(chip->regs))
> > return PTR_ERR(chip->regs);
> >
> > - /* Apply default dma_mask if needed */
> > - if (!dev->dma_mask) {
> > - dev->dma_mask = &dev->coherent_dma_mask;
> > - dev->coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> > - }
> > + err = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
>
> I have at least one question.
>
> In case of new code you always assign dev->dma_mask.
>
> static inline int dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(struct device *dev, u64
> mask)
> {
> dev->dma_mask = &dev->coherent_dma_mask;
> return dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, mask);
> }
>
> So, the question is how keep the initialized dma_mask (and should we do
> so by your opinion)?
Well, the way the DMA mask stuff is supposed to operate is:
- The device creator initializes the DMA mask to some default value.
- The driver then uses dma_set_mask() / dma_set_coherent_mask() /
dma_set_mask_and_coherent() to adjust the mask according to the
capabilities of the device, *even* if the mask is the same as the
default.
This is specified in the various DMA API documents.
So, in PCI land, it works like this:
- When a PCI device is created, it has its mask set to 32-bit.
- When a driver comes along
- if the device is capable of 64-bit addressing, it tries to set a
64-bit mask. If this fails, it tries to set a 32-bit mask and
turns off 64-bit DMA.
- if a device is not capable of 32-bit addressing but of a smaller
space (there are some PCI devices which can only do 31-bit) then
it tries to set that mask.
If the driver can't successfully set a mask, it should fail to
initialise.
This is where we should be headed with all drivers, and I would welcome
a patch for this driver to make it conform wrt the DMA API and DMA masks
in place of this patch.
Think of the coerse stuff as a middle-step to bring these types of issues
up to the fore.
--
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