Hi,
On 12/07/2022 06:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 04:31:49PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 10:26:14AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Hi i915 and nouveau maintainers,
any chance I could get some help to remove the remaining direct
driver calls into swiotlb, namely swiotlb_max_segment and
is_swiotlb_active. Either should not matter to a driver as they
should be written to the DMA API.
Hi Christoph,
while we take a look here, could you please share the reasons
behind sunsetting this calls?
Because they are a completely broken layering violation. A driver has
absolutely no business knowing the dma-mapping violation. The DMA
API reports what we think is all useful constraints (e.g.
dma_max_mapping_size()), and provides useful APIs to (e.g.
dma_alloc_noncoherent or dma_alloc_noncontiguous) to allocate pages
that can be mapped without bounce buffering and drivers should use
the proper API instead of poking into one particular implementation
and restrict it from changing.
swiotlb_max_segment in particular returns a value that isn't actually
correct (a driver can't just use all of swiotlb) AND actually doesn't
work as is in various scenarious that are becoming more common,
most notably host with memory encryption schemes that always require
bounce buffering.
All these are either in the internal backend or in the old shmem
backend. I understand both are soon to be retired or deprecated. I think.
+ Matt & Thomas, and Bob actually as well, as I think authorities in the
shmem, TTM and internal backend at the moment. Could you guys please
have look if and how the TTM backend needs to handle this and what is
the timeline of retirement if relevant?
Regards,
Tvrtko
