On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 6:57 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:41:46 +0000, > Peter Geis <pgwipeout@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 3:05 AM Lucas Tanure <lucas.tanure@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The GIC600 integration in RK356x, used in rk3588, doesn't support > > > any of the shareability or cacheability attributes, and requires > > > both values to be set to 0b00 for all the ITS and Redistributor > > > tables. > > > > > > This is loosely based on prior work from XiaoDong Huang and > > > Peter Geis fixing this issue specifically for Rockchip 356x. > > > > Good Morning, > > > > Since the gic is using dma, would it be reasonable to have all memory > > allocations be requested with the GFP_DMA flag? Otherwise this doesn't > > fully solve the problem for rk356x, where only the lower 4GB range is > > DMA capable, but this tends to get allocated in the upper 4GB on 8GB > > boards. > > That's an erratum. Please treat as such. Good Morning, Yes, believe me I'm fully aware of how broken rk356x is. I'm asking an educational question from a kernel standards point of view, absent the rk356x issues. Would it be reasonable that since the gic uses dma memory, allocations for the gic should be made with the GFP_DMA flag? Or is that a misuse of the flag? Very Respectfully, Peter Geis > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
