[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3aacbda7b6227c0f0bc46b39575f8eb1417a51b.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:16:47 +0000
From: Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>
To: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"l.stach@...gutronix.de" <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
CC: "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"patchwork-lst@...gutronix.de" <patchwork-lst@...gutronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-direct: don't truncate dma_required_mask to bus
addressing capabilities
On Tue, 2019-08-06 at 07:23 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 05:51:53PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > The dma required_mask needs to reflect the actual addressing
> > capabilities
> > needed to handle the whole system RAM. When truncated down to the
> > bus
> > addressing capabilities dma_addressing_limited() will incorrectly
> > signal
> > no limitations for devices which are restricted by the
> > bus_dma_mask.
> >
> > Fixes: b4ebe6063204 (dma-direct: implement complete bus_dma_mask
> > handling)
> > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
>
> Yeah, this looks sensible. Atish, can you check if this helps on the
> HiFive board as well?
Yes. It fixes the nvme issue on HiFive Unleashed + Microsemi expansion
board.
FWIW,
Tested-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
Regards,
Atish
Powered by blists - more mailing lists