On Thursday 05 March 2015 20:55:07 Grygorii.Strashko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Now I can see very interesting behavior related to dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent()
> and friends which I'd like to explain and clarify.
>
> Below is set of questions I have (why - I explained below):
> - Is expected dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(DMA_BIT_MASK(64)) and friends to fail on 32 bits HW?
No. dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent() is meant to ignore the actual mask. It's
usually considered a bug to use this function for that reason.
> - What is expected value for max_pfn: max_phys_pfn or max_phys_pfn + 1?
>
> - What is expected value for struct memblock_region->size: mem_range_size or mem_range_size - 1?
>
> - What is expected value to be returned by memblock_end_of_DRAM():
> @base + @size(max_phys_addr + 1) or @base + @size - 1(max_phys_addr)?
>
>
> I'm working with BeaglBoard-X15 (AM572x/DRA7xx) board and have following code in OMAP ASOC driver
> which is failed SOMETIMES during the boot with error -EIO.
> === to omap-pcm.c:
> omap_pcm_new() {
> ...
> ret = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(card->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
> ^^ failed sometimes
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> }
The code should be fixed to use dma_set_mask_and_coherent(), which is expected to
fail if the bus is incapable of addressing all RAM within the mask.
> I'd be very appreciated for any comments/clarification on questions I've listed at the
> beginning of my e-mail - there are no patches from my side as I'd like to understand
> expected behavior of the kernel first (especially taking into account that any
> memblock changes might affect on at least half of arches).
Is the device you have actually 64-bit capable?
Is the bus it is connected to 64-bit wide?
Does the dma-ranges property of the parent bus reflect the correct address width?
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>