Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:02:30 +0200
From:   Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>
Subject: Re: [BUG BISECT] Ethernet fail on VF50 (OF: Don't set default
 coherent DMA mask)

On 31.07.2018 18:29, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 31/07/18 16:53, Stefan Agner wrote:
>> On 31.07.2018 14:32, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 31/07/18 09:19, Stefan Agner wrote:
>>>> On 30.07.2018 16:38, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>> On 28/07/18 17:58, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 04:04:48PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 03:18:14PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27 July 2018 at 15:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On today's next, the bisect pointed commit
>>>>>>>>> ff33d1030a6ca87cea9a41e1a2ea7750a781ab3d as fault for my boot failures
>>>>>>>>> with NFSv4 root on Toradex Colibri VF50 (Iris carrier board).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Author: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
>>>>>>>>> Date:   Mon Jul 23 23:16:12 2018 +0100
>>>>>>>>>        OF: Don't set default coherent DMA mask
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Board: Toradex Colibri VF50 (NXP VF500, Cortex A5, serial configured
>>>>>>>>> with DMA) on Iris Carrier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It looks like problem with Freescale Ethernet driver:
>>>>>>>>> [   15.458477] fsl-edma 40018000.dma-controller: coherent DMA mask is unset
>>>>>>>>> [   15.465284] fsl-lpuart 40027000.serial: Cannot prepare cyclic DMA
>>>>>>>>> [   15.472086] Root-NFS: no NFS server address
>>>>>>>>> [   15.476359] VFS: Unable to mount root fs via NFS, trying floppy.
>>>>>>>>> [   15.484228] VFS: Cannot open root device "nfs" or
>>>>>>>>> unknown-block(2,0): error -6
>>>>>>>>> [   15.491664] Please append a correct "root=" boot option; here are
>>>>>>>>> the available partitions:
>>>>>>>>> [   15.500188] 0100           16384 ram0
>>>>>>>>> [   15.500200]  (driver?)
>>>>>>>>> [   15.506406] Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root
>>>>>>>>> fs on unknown-block(2,0)
>>>>>>>>> [   15.514747] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to
>>>>>>>>> mount root fs on unknown-block(2,0) ]---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Attached - defconfig and full boot log.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any hints?
>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you need any more information.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My Exynos boards also fail to boot on missing network:
>>>>>>>> https://krzk.eu/#/builders/21/builds/799/steps/10/logs/serial0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As expected there are plenty of "DMA mask not set" warnings... and
>>>>>>>> later dwc3 driver fails with:
>>>>>>>>        dwc3: probe of 12400000.dwc3 failed with error -12
>>>>>>>> which is probably the answer why LAN attached to USB is not present.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like all the drivers failed to set a dma mask and were lucky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would call it a serious regression. Also, no longer setting a default
>>>>>> coherent DMA mask is a quite substantial behavioral change, especially
>>>>>> if and since the code worked just fine up to now.
>>>>>
>>>>> To reiterate, that particular side-effect was an unintentional
>>>>> oversight, and I was simply (un)lucky enough that none of the drivers
>>>>> I did test depended on that default mask. Sorry for the blip; please
>>>>> check whether it's now fixed in next-20180730 as it should be.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just for my understanding:
>>>>
>>>> Your first patch ("OF: Don't set default coherent DMA mask") sounded
>>>> like that *not* setting default coherent DMA mask was intentionally.
>>>> Since the commit message reads: "...the bus code has not initialised any
>>>> default value" that was assuming that all bus code sets a default DMA
>>>> mask which wasn't the case for "simple-bus".
>>>
>>> Yes, reading the patches in the order they were written is perhaps a
>>> little unclear, but hopefully the order in which they are now applied
>>> makes more sense.
>>>
>>>> So I guess that is what ("of/platform: Initialise default DMA masks")
>>>> makes up for in the typical device tree case ("simple-bus")?
>>>
>>> Indeed, I'd missed the fact that the now-out-of-place-looking
>>> initialisation in of_dma_configure() still actually belonged to
>>> of_platform_device_create_pdata() - that patch should make the
>>> assumptions of "OF: Don't set default coherent DMA mask" true again,
>>> even for OF-platform devices.
>>>
>>>> Now, since almost all drivers are inside a soc "simple-bus" and DMA mask
>>>> is set again, can/should we rely on the coherent DMA mask set?
>>>>
>>>> Or is the expectation still that this is set on driver level too?
>>>
>>> Ideally, we'd like all drivers to explicitly request their masks as
>>> the documentation in DMA-API-HOWTO.txt recommends, if only to ensure
>>> DMA is actually possible - there can be systems where even the default
>>> 32-bit mask is no good - but clearly we're a little way off trying to
>>> enforce that just yet.
>>
>> In the FEC driver case, there is an integrated DMA (uDMA). It has
>> alignment restrictions, but can otherwise address the full 32-bit range.
>>
>> So something like this should do it right?
>>
>> 	if (dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32))) {
>> 		dev_warn(dev, "No suitable DMA available\n");
>> 		return -ENODEV;
>> 	}
>>
> 
> Yup, precisely.
> 
>> However, that, as far as I understand, still requires that the bus set
>> up dma_mask properly.
>>
>> Should I be using dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent?
> 
> AFAICS for FEC, the ColdFire instances have statically-set masks, the
> i.MX boardfiles get them set via platform+device_register_full(), and
> now that the bug-which-never-should-have-been is fixed the DT-based
> instances should be fine too, so you should be good to go. In general
> I'd say that the dma_coerce_mask*() routines are only really for
> generic interface drivers like *HCI where they don't really know what
> the underlying device is and it may be on any old random bus. Drivers
> for specific IP blocks normally only have one or two known buses to
> deal with, so in most cases it's more reasonable to make the bus code
> well-behaved if it isn't already.

Got it, with your patch the underlying bus of the DT case is well
behaving again.

Will send a patch which makes use of dma_set_mask_and_coherent.

Thanks for your clarification!

--
Stefan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists