netdev - Re: [PATCH] [v5] net: emac: emac gigabit ethernet controller driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <576832BF.7080805@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:15:27 -0500
From:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To:	shankerd@...eaurora.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, sdharia@...eaurora.org,
	vikrams@...eaurora.org, cov@...eaurora.org, gavidov@...eaurora.org,
	andrew@...n.ch, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, mlangsdo@...hat.com,
	jcm@...hat.com, agross@...eaurora.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	f.fainelli@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v5] net: emac: emac gigabit ethernet controller driver

Shanker Donthineni wrote:
>          /* 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));

I'm not sure this example is valid because HCC_64BIT_ADDR is part of the 
XCHI specification, so there's an architected way determine whether the 
platform is 64-bit capable or not.  The EMAC has nothing like that.

I can do this:

	ret = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
	if (ret)
		dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32))

but this has always seemed wrong to me, because it doesn't make sense to 
me that DMA_BIT_MASK(64) could ever fail.  DMA_BIT_MASK(64) says that 
the device can handle any physical address, so the device does not 
impose any limitations.  How could that fail?  I have has this question 
multiple times, and I have never gotten a satisfactory answer.

Also, I don't know if I should be using dma_set_mask_and_coherent or 
dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent.  The comment for 
dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent says this:

/*
  * Similar to the above, except it deals with the case where the device
  * does not have dev->dma_mask appropriately setup.
  */

How can I know if the device has dev->dma_mask "appropriately setup"?

Remember, I need a solution that works for DT and ACPI.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum, a Linux Foundation collaborative project.