[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <555216D9.30506@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 10:06:01 -0500
From: Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: <thomas.lendacky@....com>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <arnd@...db.de>,
<linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>, <will.deacon@....com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <al.stone@...aro.org>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<leo.duran@....com>, <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>, <msalter@...hat.com>,
<grant.likely@...aro.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [V3 PATCH 1/5] ACPI / scan: Parse _CCA and setup device coherency
On 5/11/2015 8:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, May 11, 2015 05:16:27 PM Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:53:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 07, 2015 07:37:12 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>>> index ab2cbb5..7822149 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -54,6 +54,12 @@ config ACPI_GENERIC_GSI
>>>> config ACPI_SYSTEM_POWER_STATES_SUPPORT
>>>> bool
>>>>
>>>> +config ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED
>>>> + bool
>>>> +
>>>> +config ARM64_SUPPORT_ACPI_CCA_ZERO
>>>
>>> Hmm. I guess the Arnd's idea what to simply use CONFIG_ARM64 directly instead
>>> of adding this new option.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>>> +static inline bool acpi_dma_is_supported(struct acpi_device *adev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Currently, we mainly support _CCA=1 (i.e. is_coherent=1)
>>>> + * This should be equivalent to specifyig dma-coherent for
>>>> + * a device in OF.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * For the case when _CCA=0 (i.e. is_coherent=0 && cca_seen=1),
>>>> + * we would rely on arch-specific cache maintenance for
>>>> + * non-coherence DMA operations if architecture specifies
>>>> + * _XXX_SUPPORT_CCA_ZERO. Otherwise, we do not support
>>>> + * DMA on this device and fallback to arch-specific default
>>>> + * handling.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * For the case when _CCA is missing (i.e. cca_seen=0) but
>>>> + * platform specifies ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED, we do not support DMA,
>>>> + * and fallback to arch-specific default handling.
>>>> + */
>>>> + return adev && (adev->flags.is_coherent ||
>>>> + (adev->flags.cca_seen &&
>>>> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_SUPPORT_ACPI_CCA_ZERO)));
>>>
>>> So what exactly would be wrong with using IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) here?
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow why we need to check for ARM64 here at all. Can we
>> not just have something like:
>>
>> return adev && (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED) ||
>> adev->flags.cca_seen)
>
> If _CCA returns 0 on non-ARM64, DMA is not supported for this device, so
> in that case the function should return 'false' while the above check will
> make it return 'true'.
>
The main idea is basically to allow architecture to decide if it wants
to specify if it wants to support _CCA=0. Currently, there are two
approaches.
1. Do not support and disable DMA
2. Support and default to what architecture would normally do for
non-coherent DMA.
Since, ARM64 being the only platform, which supports ACPI and would
support _CCA=0. I can just put CONFIG_ARM64 then as Arnd and Rafael
mentioned.
Thanks,
Suravee
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists