Hi Russell, On Tuesday 23 May 2017 18:53:19 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 05:55:57PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > On 23/05/17 17:25, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> So, I've come to apply this patch (since it's finally landed in the > >> patch system), and I'm not convinced that the commit message is really > >> up to scratch. > >> > >> The current commit message looks like this: > >> > >> " ARM: 8674/1: dma-mapping: Reset the device's dma_ops > >> arch_teardown_dma_ops() being the inverse of arch_setup_dma_ops(), > >> dma_ops should be cleared in the teardown path. Otherwise this > >> causes problem when the probe of device is retried after being > >> deferred. The device's iommu structures are cleared after > >> EPROBEDEFER error, but on the next try dma_ops will still be set to > >> old value, which is not right." > >> > >> It is obviously a fix, but a fix for which patch? Looking at the > >> history, we have "arm: dma-mapping: Don't override dma_ops in > >> arch_setup_dma_ops()" which I would have guessed is the appropriate > >> one, but this post-dates your patch (it's very recent, v4.12-rc > >> recent.) > >> > >> So, I need more description about the problem you were seeing when > >> you first proposed this patch. > >> > >> How does leaving the dma_ops in place prior to "arm: dma-mapping: > >> Don't override dma_ops in arch_setup_dma_ops()" cause problems for > >> deferred probing? > >> > >> What patch is your change trying to fix? In other words, how far > >> back does this patch need to be backported? > > > > In effect, it's fixing a latent inconsistency that's been present since > > its introduction in 4bb25789ed28. However, that has clearly not proven > > to be an issue in practice since then. With 09515ef5ddad we start > > actually calling arch_teardown_dma_ops() in a manner that might leave > > things partially initialised if anyone starts removing and reprobing > > drivers, but so far that's still from code inspection[1] rather than > > anyone hitting it. > > > > Given that the changes which tickle it are fresh in -rc1 I'd say there's > > no need to backport this, but at the same time it shouldn't do any > > damage if you really want to. > > Well, looking at this, I'm not convinced that much of it is correct. > > 1) set_dma_ops() is in arch_setup_dma_ops() but this patch adds > the unsetting of the DMA ops inside arm_teardown_iommu_dma_ops() > rather than arch_teardown_dma_ops(). > > This doesn't strike me as being particularly symmetric. > arm_teardown_iommu_dma_ops() is arm_setup_iommu_dma_ops()'s > counterpart. > > 2) arch_setup_dma_ops(), the recent patch to add the existing dma_ops > check, and Xen - Xen wants to override the DMA ops if in the > initial domain. It's not clear (at least to me) whether the recent > patch adding the dma_ops check took account of this or not. > > 3) random places seem to fiddle with the dma_ops - notice that > arm_iommu_detach_device() sets the dma_ops to NULL. > > In fact, I think moving __arm_iommu_detach_device() into > arm_iommu_detach_device(), calling arm_iommu_detach_device(), > and getting rid of the explicit set_dma_ops(, NULL) in this > path would be a good first step. > > 4) I think arch_setup_dma_ops() is over-complex. > > So, in summary, this code is a mess today, and that means it's not > obviously correct - which is bad. This needs sorting. We've reached the same conclusion independently, but I'll refrain from commenting on whether that's a good or bad thing :-) I don't think this patch should be applied, as it could break Xen (and other platforms/drivers that set the DMA operations manually) by resetting DMA operations at device remove() time even if they have been set independently of arch_setup_dma_ops(). The IOMMU probe deferral support patch series was merged in v4.12-rc1 and breaks IOMMU operations on several platforms. We need a fix for v4.12-rc that should be as nonintrusive as possible, as a larger cleanup is likely not -rc material. Beside reverting the whole series, the simplest option I came up with was [1]. Note that this is not the only fix needed to fix v4.12-rc1 IOMMU breakage, there are four more patches in the series that Sricharan plans to get merged soon. I don't think there are dependencies between the other four drivers/ patches and the arch/arm/ patch, so the latter could be merged independently through your tree as soon as it's deemed ready. [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg583019.html -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
