On Wednesday 07 May 2014 09:55:16 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 06 May 2014 16:48:33 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > @@ -51,8 +53,12 @@ static void gapspci_fixup_resources(struct pci_dev *dev) > > /* > > * Redirect dma memory allocations to special memory window. > > */ > > + region.start = GAPSPCI_DMA_BASE; > > + region.end = GAPSPCI_DMA_BASE + GAPSPCI_DMA_SIZE - 1; > > + res.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM; > > + pcibios_bus_to_resource(dev->bus, &res, ®ion); > > BUG_ON(!dma_declare_coherent_memory(&dev->dev, > > - GAPSPCI_DMA_BASE, > > + res->start, > > GAPSPCI_DMA_BASE, > > GAPSPCI_DMA_SIZE, > > DMA_MEMORY_MAP | > > Not sure if this is an improvement. I understand the intention, but > it's actually possible for the offset to be different both ways: > > Your patch applies the outbound mem_offset that was provided when > registering the MMIO resource for the PCI host bridge. What the driver > needs instead is the inbound DMA offset that gets applied by some > host bridges that don't have a 1:1 mapping but also don't have an > IOMMU. We know that on this particular platform, both are zero, so > the original code works and it will keep working with your change, > but I think it's a mistake anyway. I have seen both kinds of offsets > in the past on real machines, but I am not aware of any where they > are both nonzero and have the same value. Hmm, looking at it again, it seem even weirder: the address we register for DMA allocations is the same that gets passed into the PCI host for MMIO resources. Something is very strange here. Still, I'd rather not touch it at all, whatever it does. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
