[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180927134954.GB8281@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:49:54 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] dma-direct: always allow dma mask <= physiscal
memory size
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:50:14AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > - * to be able to satisfy them - either by not supporting more physical
> > - * memory, or by providing a ZONE_DMA32. If neither is the case, the
> > - * architecture needs to use an IOMMU instead of the direct mapping.
> > - */
> > - if (mask < phys_to_dma(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)))
> > + u64 min_mask;
> > +
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA))
> > + min_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS);
> > + else
> > + min_mask = min_t(u64, DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
> > + (max_pfn - 1) << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > +
> > + if (mask >= phys_to_dma(dev, min_mask))
> > return 0;
>
> nitpick ... to be completely "correct", I would have written
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA))
> min_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS);
> else
> min_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>
> min_mask = min_t(u64, min_mask, (max_pfn - 1) << PAGE_SHIFT);
>
> In "theory" it's also ok to have a mask < ZONE_DMA_BITS as long as it's
> big enough to fit all memory :-)
Yeah, we could do that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists