Date:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 00:02:13 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Sriram Dash <sriram.dash@...sung.com>,
        Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com>,
        mathias.nyman@...el.com
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, mgautam@...eaurora.org,
        felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] usb: xhci: inherit dma_mask from bus if set correctly

On 2019-04-09 3:56 am, Sriram Dash wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 9:53 PM Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 15:34, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/04/2019 10:40, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
>>>> From: Sriram Dash <sriram.dash@...sung.com>
>>>>
>>>> The xhci forcefully converts the dma_mask to either 64 or 32 and the
>>>> dma-mask set by the bus is somewhat ignored. If the platform  sets the
>>>> correct dma_mask, then respect that.
>>>
>>> It's expected for dma_mask to be larger than bus_dma_mask if the latter
>>> is set - conceptually, the device mask represents what the device is
>>> inherently capable of, while the bus mask represents external
>>> interconnect restrictions which individual drivers should not have to
>>> care about. The DMA API backend should take care of combining the two to
>>> find the intersection.
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> We are dealing here with the xhci platform which inherits the dma mask
>> of the parent, which is from a controller device.
>>
>> When the controller dma mask is set by the platform in DT, what we
>> observe is, its not getting inherited properly and the xhci bus is
>> forcing the dma address to be either 32 bit or 64 bit.
>>
>> In "drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c" we have dma_mask setting as below:
>>
>>   /* Try to set 64-bit DMA first */
>> if (WARN_ON(!sysdev->dma_mask))
>>       /* Platform did not initialize dma_mask */
>>       ret = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(sysdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>> else
>>       ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(sysdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>>
>> So even if the controller device has set the dma_mask as per it's
>> configuration in DT, xhci-plat.c will override it here in else part.
>>
>> Next it goes to "drivers/usb/host/xhci.c" file, here we have code as:
>>
>> /* Set dma_mask and coherent_dma_mask to 64-bits,
>>   * if xHC supports 64-bit addressing */
>> if (HCC_64BIT_ADDR(xhci->hcc_params) &&
>>                  !dma_set_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64))) {
>>          xhci_dbg(xhci, "Enabling 64-bit DMA addresses.\n");
>>          dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>> } else {
>>          /*
>>           * This is to avoid error in cases where a 32-bit USB
>>           * controller is used on a 64-bit capable system.
>>           */
>>          retval = dma_set_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
>>          if (retval)
>>                  return retval;
>>          xhci_dbg(xhci, "Enabling 32-bit DMA addresses.\n");
>>          dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
>> }
>>
>> So xhci will force the dma_mask to either DMA_BIT_MASK(32) or
>> DMA_BIT_MASK(64), what if my device needs other than 32 bit or 64 bit
>> dma_mask.
>>
>> The bus_dma_mask was introduced for a case when the bus from a
>> device's dma interface may carry fewer address bits. But apparently,
>> it is the only mask which retains the original dma addressing from the
>> parent. So basically what we observe is currently there is no way we
>> can pass dma_mask greater than 32-bit, from DT via dev->dma_mask or
>> dev->coherent_dma_mask due to below logic in
>>
>> from "drivers/of/platform.c" we have
>> static struct platform_device *of_platform_device_create_pdata(
>>                                          struct device_node *np,
>>                                          const char *bus_id,
>>                                          void *platform_data,
>>                                          struct device *parent)
>> {
>>        struct platform_device *dev;
>>        ...
>>        dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>>        if (!dev->dev.dma_mask)
>>               dev->dev.dma_mask = &dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask;
>>    ...
>> }
>>
>> and then in of_dma_configure function in "drivers/of/device.c" we have..
>>
>> mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(ilog2(dma_addr + size - 1) + 1); //This mask
>> computation is going fine and gets mask greater than 32-bit if defined
>> in DT
>> dev->coherent_dma_mask &= mask;  // Here the higher bit [63:32] will
>> get truncated as coherent_dma_mask is initialized to DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
>> in platform.c
>>
>> *dev->dma_mask &= mask; //Same here higher bits will get truncated
>> /* ...but only set bus mask if we found valid dma-ranges earlier */
>> if (!ret)
>> dev->bus_dma_mask = mask; //Only bus_dma_mask can carry the original
>> mask as specified in platform DT.
>>
>> To minimise the impact on existing code, we reused the bus_dma_mask
>> for finding the dma addressing bits.
>>
>> Or other way we may need to initialise dma_mask/coherent_dma_mask as
>> DMA_BIT_MASK(64) in "drivers/of/platform.c" and let all devices set
>> dma_mask via DT using "dma-ranges" property or respective platform
>> driver.
>>
>>> Are you seeing an actual problem here, and if so
>>> on which platform? (If the bus mask is set at all then it wouldn't seem
>>> to be the DT PCI issue that I'm still trying to fix).
>>>
>>
>>
>> We are facing this issue in one of the Samsung's upcoming SoC where we
>> need dma_mask greater than 32-bit.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pankaj
>>> Robin.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sriram Dash <sriram.dash@...sung.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
>>>> index 005e659..55cf89e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
>>>> @@ -5119,6 +5119,16 @@ int xhci_gen_setup(struct usb_hcd *hcd, xhci_get_quirks_t get_quirks)
>>>>                dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
>>>>        }
>>>>
>>>> +     /*
>>>> +      * A platform may require coherent masks other than 64/32 bit, and we
>>>> +      * should respect that. If the firmware has already requested for a
>>>> +      * dma-range, we inherit the dma_mask presuming the platform knows
>>>> +      * what it is doing.
>>>> +      */
>>>> +
>>>> +     if (dev->bus_dma_mask)
>>>> +             dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, dev->bus_dma_mask);
>>>> +
>>>>        xhci_dbg(xhci, "Calling HCD init\n");
>>>>        /* Initialize HCD and host controller data structures. */
>>>>        retval = xhci_init(hcd);
>>>>
> 
> Hello Robin,
> 
> Hope you found the crux of the matter. Any comments on the same?

Sorry, I never received either of these replies - I've just happened to 
notice this thread again by pure chance while looking at the linux-usb 
patchwork for something else entirely, and managed to dredge an mbox off 
lore.kernel.org to reply to. Mail is not my area of expertise, but 
looking at the headers of the initial patch in my inbox it seems that 
outlook.com is doing SPF negotiation with samsung.com, so sending via 
gmail (as those replies appear to be) may be failing that and getting 
silently discarded (they're not even in my spam quarantine).

 From the snippets of code quoted above I don't see anything obviously 
wrong, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow. AFAICS though, if 
dev->bus_dma_mask is set then dev is probably the appropriate device for 
DMA, so I wouldn't expect a problem - XHCI is inherently a 64-bit 
device, so its driver *should* be setting a 64-bit mask in this case. To 
reiterate, what's the nature of the DMA issue? Do the mapping operations 
fail, or do you actually see transfers going wrong due to address 
truncation? Also, which arch is involved here - is it arm64 (as I seem 
to have assumed), or something else?

Robin.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists