On 2021-05-11 10:06 a.m., Don Dutile wrote:
> On 4/8/21 1:01 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> Add a flags member to the dma_map_ops structure with one flag to
>> indicate support for PCI P2PDMA.
>>
>> Also, add a helper to check if a device supports PCI P2PDMA.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/linux/dma-map-ops.h | 3 +++
>> include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 5 +++++
>> kernel/dma/mapping.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-map-ops.h b/include/linux/dma-map-ops.h
>> index 51872e736e7b..481892822104 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/dma-map-ops.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/dma-map-ops.h
>> @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@
>> struct cma;
>>
>> struct dma_map_ops {
>> + unsigned int flags;
>> +#define DMA_F_PCI_P2PDMA_SUPPORTED (1 << 0)
>> +
> I'm not a fan of in-line define's; if we're going to add a flags field to the dma-ops
> -- and logically it'd be good to have p2pdma go through the dma-ops struct --
> then let's move this up in front of the dma-ops description.
Already changed for v2.
> And now that the dma-ops struct is being 'opened' for p2pdma, should p2pdma ops be added
> to this struct, so all this work can be mimic'd/reflected/leveraged/refactored for CXL, GenZ, etc. p2pdma in (the near?) future?
v2 no longer has a specific op for p2pdma. We are now using
dma_map_sgtable() which already has the error return we need.
I think any work to support CXL, GenZ, etc will need to be done when
they add their own support. I can't and shouldn't guess at their needs now.
Logan
