[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1477939258.30971.1.camel@crowfest.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:40:58 -0700
From: Michael Zoran <mzoran@...wfest.net>
To: Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: swarren@...dotorg.org, lee@...nel.org, daniels@...labora.com,
noralf@...nnes.org, popcornmix@...il.com,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vc04_services: setup DMA and coherent mask
On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 11:36 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Michael Zoran <mzoran@...wfest.net> writes:
>
> > Setting the DMA mask is optional on 32 bit but
> > is mandatory on 64 bit. Set the DMA mask and coherent
> > to force all DMA to be in the 32 bit address space.
> >
> > This is considered a "good practice" and most drivers
> > already do this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Zoran <mzoran@...wfest.net>
> > ---
> > .../staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c |
> > 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.
> > c
> > b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.
> > c
> > index a5afcc5..6fa2b5a 100644
> > ---
> > a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.
> > c
> > +++
> > b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.
> > c
> > @@ -97,6 +97,16 @@ int vchiq_platform_init(struct platform_device
> > *pdev, VCHIQ_STATE_T *state)
> > int slot_mem_size, frag_mem_size;
> > int err, irq, i;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Setting the DMA mask is necessary in the 64 bit
> > environment.
> > + * It isn't necessary in a 32 bit environment but is
> > considered
> > + * a good practice.
> > + */
> > + err = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
>
> I think a better comment here would be simply:
>
> /* VCHI messages between the CPU and firmware use 32-bit bus
> addresses. */
>
> explaining why the value is chosen (once you know that the 32 bit
> restriction exists, reporting it is obviously needed). I'm curious,
> though: what failed when you didn't set it?
>
The comment is easy to change.
I don't have the log available ATM, but if I remember the DMA API's
bugcheck the first time that are used.
I think this was a policy decision or something because the information
should be available in the dma-ranges.
If it's important, I can setup a test again without the change and e-
mail the logs.
If you look at the DWC2 driver you will see that it also sets this
mask.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists