[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b94f49f-3264-a02f-befe-c02214061f4e@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:57:34 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Michael Brown <mbrown@...systems.co.uk>,
Solarflare linux maintainers <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
Martin Habets <mhabets@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: ethernet/sfc/ warnings with 32-bit dma_addr_t
On 8/19/20 3:37 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 19/08/2020 01:28, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does the drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/sfc driver require (expect)
>> dma_addr_t to be 64 bits (as opposed to 32 bits)?
>>
>> I see that several #defines in ef100_regs.h are 64...
>>
>> When used with DMA_BIT_MASK(64), does the value just need to be
>> truncated to 32 bits? Will that work?
> As far as I can tell, truncation to 32 bits is harmless — the
> called function (efx_init_io) already tries every mask from the
> passed one down to 32 bits in case of PCIe hardware limitations.
>
> The ef10 and siena versions also truncate like this (their
> #defines are 48 and 46 respectively), but because they are
> handled indirectly through efx_nic_type, the compiler isn't able
> to determine this statically as it can with ef100.
>> When I build this driver on i386 with 32-bit dma_addr_t, I see
>> the following build warnings:
> Could you test whether explicitly casting to dma_addr_t suppresses
> the warnings? I.e.
>
> efx_init_io(efx, bar,
> (dma_addr_t)DMA_BIT_MASK(ESF_GZ_TX_SEND_ADDR_WIDTH),
> pci_resource_len(efx->pci_dev, bar));
Yes, that fixes the warnings.
thanks.
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists