[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231211132757.GE25681@willie-the-truck>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:27:57 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] ACPI/IORT: Handle memory address size limits as
limits
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 05:43:00PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Return the Root Complex/Named Component memory address size limit as an
> inclusive limit value, rather than an exclusive size. This saves us
> having to special-case 64-bit overflow, and simplifies our caller too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/arm64/dma.c | 9 +++------
> drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 18 ++++++++----------
> include/linux/acpi_iort.h | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> index 6496ff5a6ba2..eb64d8e17dd1 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> @@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ int iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev, const u32 *input_id)
> { return -ENODEV; }
> #endif
>
> -static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size)
> +static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *limit)
> {
> struct acpi_iort_node *node;
> struct acpi_iort_named_component *ncomp;
> @@ -1384,13 +1384,12 @@ static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - *size = ncomp->memory_address_limit >= 64 ? U64_MAX :
> - 1ULL<<ncomp->memory_address_limit;
> + *limit = (1ULL << ncomp->memory_address_limit) - 1;
The old code handled 'ncomp->memory_address_limit >= 64' -- why is it safe
to drop that? You mention it in the cover letter, so clearly I'm missing
something!
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int rc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size)
> +static int rc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *limit)
> {
> struct acpi_iort_node *node;
> struct acpi_iort_root_complex *rc;
> @@ -1408,8 +1407,7 @@ static int rc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - *size = rc->memory_address_limit >= 64 ? U64_MAX :
> - 1ULL<<rc->memory_address_limit;
> + *limit = (1ULL << rc->memory_address_limit) - 1;
Same thing here.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists