[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YUmnEoifUsnvAiuV@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:34:10 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG 5.14] arm64/mm: dma memory mapping fails (in some cases)
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:20:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:57:58AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > As this WARN_ON(pfn_valid()) is only present in dma_map_resource() it's
> > > probably safe to drop it entirely.
> >
> > I agree, we should drop it. IIUC dma_map_resource() does not create any
> > kernel mapping to cause problems with attribute aliasing. You'd need a
> > prior devm_ioremap_resource() if you want access to that range from the
> > CPU side. For arm64 at least, the latter ends up with a
> > pfn_is_map_memory() check.
>
> It doesn't create any new mappings. The only real issue is that it
> does the wrong thing for RAM in a way that might not be noticed on
> simple (x86/PC) platforms.
But if the mapping request was rejected by devm_ioremap_resource() because
of an attempt to map RAM, why we would get to dma_map_resource() at all?
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists