[31/33] dma-direct: reject too small dma masks

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
 include/linux/dma-direct.h |  1 +
 lib/dma-direct.c           | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)

On 10/01/18 08:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> ---
>   include/linux/dma-direct.h |  1 +
>   lib/dma-direct.c           | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-direct.h b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
> index 4788bf0bf683..bcdb1a3e4b1f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dma-direct.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
> @@ -42,5 +42,6 @@ void *dma_direct_alloc(struct device *dev, size_t size, dma_addr_t *dma_handle,
>   		gfp_t gfp, unsigned long attrs);
>   void dma_direct_free(struct device *dev, size_t size, void *cpu_addr,
>   		dma_addr_t dma_addr, unsigned long attrs);
> +int dma_direct_supported(struct device *dev, u64 mask);
>   
>   #endif /* _LINUX_DMA_DIRECT_H */
> diff --git a/lib/dma-direct.c b/lib/dma-direct.c
> index 784a68dfdbe3..40b1f92f2214 100644
> --- a/lib/dma-direct.c
> +++ b/lib/dma-direct.c
> @@ -122,6 +122,24 @@ static int dma_direct_map_sg(struct device *dev, struct scatterlist *sgl,
>   	return nents;
>   }
>   
> +int dma_direct_supported(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
> +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS))
> +		return 0;
> +#else
> +	/*
> +	 * Because 32-bit DMA masks are so common we expect every architecture
> +	 * to be able to satisfy them - either by not supporting more physical
> +	 * memory, or by providing a ZONE_DMA32.  If neither is the case, the
> +	 * architecture needs to use an IOMMU instead of the direct mapping.
> +	 */
> +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(32))
> +		return 0;

Do you think it's worth the effort to be a little more accommodating 
here? i.e.:

		return dma_max_pfn(dev) >= max_pfn;

We seem to have a fair few 28-31 bit masks for older hardware which 
probably associates with host systems packing equivalently small amounts 
of RAM.

Otherwise though,

Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>

Robin.

> +#endif
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +
>   static int dma_direct_mapping_error(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t dma_addr)
>   {
>   	return dma_addr == DIRECT_MAPPING_ERROR;
> @@ -132,6 +150,7 @@ const struct dma_map_ops dma_direct_ops = {
>   	.free			= dma_direct_free,
>   	.map_page		= dma_direct_map_page,
>   	.map_sg			= dma_direct_map_sg,
> +	.dma_supported		= dma_direct_supported,
>   	.mapping_error		= dma_direct_mapping_error,
>   };
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_direct_ops);
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:49:34AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
>> +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS))
>> +		return 0;
>> +#else
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Because 32-bit DMA masks are so common we expect every architecture
>> +	 * to be able to satisfy them - either by not supporting more physical
>> +	 * memory, or by providing a ZONE_DMA32.  If neither is the case, the
>> +	 * architecture needs to use an IOMMU instead of the direct mapping.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(32))
>> +		return 0;
>
> Do you think it's worth the effort to be a little more accommodating here? 
> i.e.:
>
> 		return dma_max_pfn(dev) >= max_pfn;
>
> We seem to have a fair few 28-31 bit masks for older hardware which 
> probably associates with host systems packing equivalently small amounts of 
> RAM.

And those devices don't have a ZONE_DMA?  I think we could do something
like that, but I'd rather have it as a separate commit with a good
explanation.  Maybe you can just send on on top of the series?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On 10/01/18 15:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:49:34AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
>>> +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS))
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +#else
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Because 32-bit DMA masks are so common we expect every architecture
>>> +	 * to be able to satisfy them - either by not supporting more physical
>>> +	 * memory, or by providing a ZONE_DMA32.  If neither is the case, the
>>> +	 * architecture needs to use an IOMMU instead of the direct mapping.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(32))
>>> +		return 0;
>>
>> Do you think it's worth the effort to be a little more accommodating here?
>> i.e.:
>>
>> 		return dma_max_pfn(dev) >= max_pfn;
>>
>> We seem to have a fair few 28-31 bit masks for older hardware which
>> probably associates with host systems packing equivalently small amounts of
>> RAM.
> 
> And those devices don't have a ZONE_DMA?  I think we could do something
> like that, but I'd rather have it as a separate commit with a good
> explanation.  Maybe you can just send on on top of the series?

Good point - other than the IXP4xx platform and possibly the Broadcom 
network drivers, it's probably only x86-relevant stuff where the concern 
is moot. Let's just keep the simple assumption then, until actually 
proven otherwise.

Robin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html