Hi Tixy,
On 17/07/15 12:01, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
Use dma_get_sgtable rather than dma_common_get_sgtable so a device's
dma_ops aren't bypassed. This is essential in situations where a device
uses an IOMMU and the physical memory is not contiguous (as the common
function assumes).
Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@xxxxxxxxxx>
The lack of obvious users of this code makes it hard to tell if "dev"
here is always the right, real, device pointer and never null or some
dummy device with the wrong dma_ops, but the rest of the calls in this
file are to the proper DMA API interface so at least this patch
definitely makes things less wrong in that respect.
Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
---
This also begs the question as to what happens if the memory region _is_
contiguous but is in highmem or an ioremapped region. Should a device
always provide dma_ops for that case? Because I believe the current
implementation of dma_common_get_sgtable won't work for those as it uses
virt_to_page.
I see that this point has been raised before [1] by Zeng Tao, and I
myself have been given a different fix to apply to a Linaro kernel tree.
However, both solutions looked wrong to me as they treat a dma_addr_t as
a physical address, so should at least be using dma_to_phys.
So, should we fix dma_common_get_sgtable or mandate that the device
has dma_ops? The latter seems to be implied by the commit message which
introduced the function:
This patch provides a generic implementation based on
virt_to_page() call. Architectures which require more
sophisticated translation might provide their own get_sgtable()
methods.
Given that we're largely here due to having poked this on arm64 systems,
I'm inclined to think that implementing our own get_sgtable as per
arch/arm is the right course of action. Since a lot of architectures
using dma_common_get_sgtable don't even implement dma_to_phys, I don't
think it would be right to try complicating the common code for a case
that seems to be all but common. I can spin an arm64 patch if you like.
Robin.
Note, I don't have a system where any of this code is used to test
things, and have never looked at this area before yesterday, so I may
have misunderstood what’s going on in the code.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/1/584
drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_cma_heap.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_cma_heap.c b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_cma_heap.c
index f4211f1..86b91fd 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_cma_heap.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_cma_heap.c
@@ -73,8 +73,7 @@ static int ion_cma_allocate(struct ion_heap *heap, struct ion_buffer *buffer,
if (!info->table)
goto free_mem;
- if (dma_common_get_sgtable
- (dev, info->table, info->cpu_addr, info->handle, len))
+ if (dma_get_sgtable(dev, info->table, info->cpu_addr, info->handle, len))
goto free_table;
/* keep this for memory release */
buffer->priv_virt = info;
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
