On 4/30/2015 3:23 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 16:53:10 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 4/29/15 11:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:44:09 Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
[...]
As for the case where _CCA=0, I think the ACPI driver should essentially
communicate the information as HW is non-coherent as described in the
spec, and should be calling arch_setup_dma_ops(dev, false). It is true
that this in probably less-likely for the ARM64 server platforms.
However, I would think that the ACPI driver should not be making such
assumption.
Can you add a description to the ACPI spec then to describe in detail what
"non-coherent" is supposed to mean, and which action the OS is supposed to
take when accessing data from device or CPU?
I believe Will has already provided this, and we have already discussed
this on separate emails in this thread.
[...]
On a related note, I'm not sure how to handle different DMA masks here.
arch_setup_dma_ops() gets passed a size (and offset) argument, which should
match the DMA mask, but I don't know if there is a way to find out the
size from ACPI. Should we assume it's always 64-bit DMA capable?
Looking at the ACPI spec, it does have the _DMA object. IIUC, this can
be used to describe DMA properties of a particular bus.
Method(_DMA, ResourceTemplate()
{
QWORDMemory(
ResourceConsumer,
PosDecode, // _DEC
MinFixed, // _MIF
MaxFixed, // _MAF
Prefetchable, // _MEM
ReadWrite, // _RW
0, // _GRA
0, // _MIN
0x1fffffff, // _MAX
0x200000000, // _TRA
0x20000000, // _LEN
, , ,
)
}
I am not sure if this is an appropriate use for this object, but this
seems to be similar to the dma-ranges property for OF, and probably can
be used to specify baseaddr and size information when calling
arch_setup_dma_ops().
Yes, that seems like a good idea. What is the expected behavior when that
object is absent? Do we assume that the parent device is not DMA capable?
From the spec:
If the _DMA object is not present for a bus device, the OS assumes that
any address placed on a bus by a child device will be decoded either by
a device on the bus or by the bus itself, (in other words, all address
ranges can be used for DMA).
The issue is, since this is optional, I don't know which FW often
providing this info.
Is this sufficient to describe the case where a device can only do DMA
to a specific address range that is not at bus address zero but that maps
to the beginning of physical RAM?
I believe that's the _MIN (Minimum Base Address) is for.
For legacy reasons, the default mask is probably best left at 32-bit,
but drivers are expected to call dma_set_mask() if they can do 64-bit DMA,
and that should fail based on the information provided by the platform
if the bus is not capable of doing that.
However, on ARM64 the dma_base and size parameter for
arch_setup_dma_ops() is currently not used, and only coherent flag is
used.
We can hope that we won't need the dma_base setting here, but it's
good to have the option to pass it down if we need it.
Not passing the size is a bug that needs to be fixed ASAP, I believe
a number of folks have run into this, most recently the APM X-Gene
MMC controller
Ok. I'll look at this separately.
We probably should look at this separately. For the moment, we can
probably say that if _CCA object is missing when needed, the ACPI driver
won't set up dma_mask when creating platform_device, which should be
equivalent to saying DMA is not supported.
Please let me know if this is acceptable, and I'll make change in V2
accordingly.
I would still ask that you treat non-coherent to mean "no DMA" until
we have come up with a way to sufficiently describe the kind of
non-coherency in ACPI.
Arnd
Ok. In V2, when _CCA=0, since we are not aware of ARM64 systems that is
working with such assumption with ACPI. I will also default to not
calling arch_setup_dma_ops() and fallback to arch-specific default. We
can revisit this later once we need to support such case.
Thanks,
Suravee
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
