On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:59:40PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> (CC'ing Maxime, I know he misses working on the DMA engine core ;-))
>
> On Thursday 14 January 2016 09:22:25 Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 13 January 2016 14:55:50 Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > >> * Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> [2016-01-13 19:06:01 +0530]:
> > >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:17:46AM +0100, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > >>>> Enable slave transfers to devices behind IPMMU:s by mapping the slave
> > >>>> addresses using the dma-mapping API.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund
> > >>>> <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>>
> > >>>> drivers/dma/sh/rcar-dmac.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >>>> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/sh/rcar-dmac.c b/drivers/dma/sh/rcar-dmac.c
> > >>>> index 7820d07..da94809 100644
> > >>>> --- a/drivers/dma/sh/rcar-dmac.c
> > >>>> +++ b/drivers/dma/sh/rcar-dmac.c
> > >>>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > >>>> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> > >>>> #include <linux/dmaengine.h>
> > >>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > >>>> +#include <linux/iommu.h>
> > >>>> #include <linux/list.h>
> > >>>> #include <linux/module.h>
> > >>>> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > >>>> @@ -1101,6 +1102,24 @@ rcar_dmac_prep_dma_cyclic(struct dma_chan
> > >>>> *chan, dma_addr_t buf_addr,
> > >>>> return desc;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +static dma_addr_t __rcar_dmac_dma_map(struct dma_chan *chan,
> > >>>> phys_addr_t addr,
> > >>>> + size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> + struct rcar_dmac_chan *rchan = to_rcar_dmac_chan(chan);
> > >>>> + struct page *page = phys_to_page(addr);
> > >>>> + size_t offset = addr - page_to_phys(page);
> > >>>> + dma_addr_t map = dma_map_page(chan->device->dev, page, offset,
> > >>>> size,
> > >>>> + dir);
> > >>>
> > >>> Hmmmm, dmaengine APIs for slave cases expect that client has already
> > >>> ammped and provided an address which the dmaengine understands. So
> > >>> doing this in driver here does not sound good to me
> > >>
> > >> It was my understanding that clients do not do this mapping and in fact
> > >> are expected not to. Is this not what Linus Walleij is trying to address
> > >> in '[PATCH] dmaengine: use phys_addr_t for slave configuration'?
> > >
> > > There's a problem somewhere and we need to fix it. Clients currently pass
> > > physical addresses and the DMA engine API expects a DMA address. There's
> > > only two ways to fix that, either modify the API to expect a phys_addr_t,
> > > or modify the clients to provide a dma_addr_t.
> >
> > Okay I am in two minds for this, doing phys_addr_t seems okay but somehow I
> > feel we should rather pass dma_addr_t and dmaengien driver get a right dma
> > address to use and thus fix the clients, that maybe the right thing to do
> > here, thoughts...?
>
> Given that there should be more clients than DMA engine drivers, and given
> that knowledge of what has to be done to map a physical address to a DMA
> address accessible by the DMA engine should not be included in client drivers
> (in most case I assume using the DMA mapping API will be enough, but details
> may vary), I believe it makes more sense to pass a phys_addr_t and let the DMA
> engine drivers handle it.
>
> There's another issue I just remembered. Consider the following cases.
>
> 1. DMA engine channel that has an optional IOMMU covering both the src and dst
> side. In that case mapping can be performed by the client or DMA engine
> driver, the DMA mapping API will handle the IOMMU behind the scene.
>
> 2. DMA engine channel that has an optional IOMMU on the memory side and no
> support for IOMMU on the slave (in the sense of the register in front of the
> client's FIFO) side. In that case a client mapping buffers on both the src and
> dst side would set an IOMMU mapped address for the slave side, which wouldn't
> work. If the DMA engine driver were to perform the mapping then it could skip
> it on the slave side, knowing that the slave side has no IOMMU.
>
> 3. DMA engine channel that has independently optional IOMMUs on both sides.
> This can't be supported today as we have a single struct device per channel
> and thus can't configure the IOMMU independently on the two sides.
>
> It's getting messy :-)
Yes I do agree on that, but the problem is today none of the slave drivers
expect or do the mapping, changing that will cause issues...
And how many do really have an IOMMU behind them, few out of large set we
have...
> > The assumption from API was always that the client should perform the
> > mapping...
> >
> > > The struct device used to map buffer through the DMA mapping API needs to
> > > be the DMA engine struct device, not the client struct device. As the
> > > client is not expected to have access to the DMA engine device I would
> > > argue that DMA engines should perform the mapping and the API should take
> > > a phys_addr_t.
> >
> > That is not a right assumption. Once the client gets a channel, they have
> > access to dmaengine device and should use that to map. Yes the key is to map
> > using dmaengine device and not client device. You can use chan->device->dev.
>
> Right, that's required by the DMA engine API even when not using slave
> transfers. Which raises an interesting consistency issue in the API, I agree
> about that.
>
> > > Vinod, unless you have reasons to do it otherwise, can we get your ack on
> > > this approach and start hammering at the code ? The problem has remained
> > > known and unfixed for too long, we need to move on.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
>
--
~Vinod
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
