On Wednesday 20 May 2015 06:52:03 Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> On 5/20/2015 5:01 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:23:09PM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >> +static inline bool acpi_dma_is_supported(struct acpi_device *adev)
> >> +{
> >> + /**
> >> + * Currently, we mainly support _CCA=1 (i.e. is_coherent=1)
> >> + * This should be equivalent to specifyig dma-coherent for
> >> + * a device in OF.
> >> + *
> >> + * For the case when _CCA=0 (i.e. is_coherent=0 && cca_seen=1),
> >> + * There are two approaches:
> >> + * 1. Do not support and disable DMA.
> >> + * 2. Support but rely on arch-specific cache maintenance for
> >> + * non-coherence DMA operations. ARM64 is one example.
> >> + *
> >> + * For the case when _CCA is missing (i.e. cca_seen=0) but
> >> + * platform specifies ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED, we do not support DMA,
> >> + * and fallback to arch-specific default handling.
> >> + *
> >> + * See acpi_init_coherency() for more info.
> >> + */
> >> + return adev && (adev->flags.is_coherent ||
> >> + (adev->flags.cca_seen && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64)));
> >> +}
> >
> > I don't particularly like the check for CONFIG_ARM64 here but I
> > understand why it was added (I had the wrong impression that x86 can
> > cope with _CCA = 0).
> >
> > Alternatively, we could leave it out (together with cca_seen) until
> > someone comes forward with a real use-case for _CCA = 0 on arm64. One
> > platform I'm aware of is Juno but even though it boot with ACPI, I
> > wouldn't call it a server platform.
>
> Ok. That seems to be what Arnd would prefer as well. Let's just leave
> the support for _CCA=0 out until it is needed then.
>
Yes, that would be best (as I said repeatedly ;-) )
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
