Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:12:49PM +0200, Christian Zigotzky wrote:
>> Hello Russell,
>>
>> You asked me about "dma-coherent" in the Cyrus device tree. Unfortunately I
>> don't find the property "dma-coherent" in the dtb source files.
>>
>> Output of "fdtdump cyrus_p5020_eth_poweroff.dtb | grep dma":
>>
>> dma0 = "/soc@ffe000000/dma@100300";
>> dma1 = "/soc@ffe000000/dma@101300";
>> dma@100300 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma";
>> dma-channel@0 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma-channel";
>> dma-channel@80 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma-channel";
>> dma-channel@100 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma-channel";
>> dma-channel@180 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma-channel";
>> dma@101300 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma";
>> dma-channel@0 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma-channel";
>> dma-channel@80 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma-channel";
>> dma-channel@100 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma-channel";
>> dma-channel@180 {
>> compatible = "fsl,eloplus-dma-channel";
>
> Hmm, so it looks like PowerPC doesn't mark devices that are dma
> coherent with a property that describes them as such.
>
> I think this opens a wider question - what should of_dma_is_coherent()
> return for PowerPC? It seems right now that it returns false for
> devices that are DMA coherent, which seems to me to be a recipe for
> future mistakes.
Right, it seems of_dma_is_coherent() has baked in the assumption that
devices are non-coherent unless explicitly marked as coherent.
Which is wrong on all or at least most existing powerpc systems
according to Ben.
> Any ideas from the PPC maintainers?
Fixing it at the source seems like the best option to prevent future
breakage.
So I guess that would mean making of_dma_is_coherent() return true/false
based on CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE on powerpc.
We could do it like below, which would still allow the dma-coherent
property to work if it ever makes sense on a future powerpc platform.
I don't really know any of this embedded stuff well, so happy to take
other suggestions on how to handle this mess.
cheers
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
index 25aaa3903000..b96c9010acb6 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
@@ -760,6 +760,22 @@ static int __init check_cache_coherency(void)
late_initcall(check_cache_coherency);
#endif /* CONFIG_CHECK_CACHE_COHERENCY */
+#ifndef CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE
+/*
+ * For historical reasons powerpc kernels are built with hard wired knowledge of
+ * whether or not DMA accesses are cache coherent. Additionally device trees on
+ * powerpc do not typically support the dma-coherent property.
+ *
+ * So when we know that DMA is coherent, override arch_of_dma_is_coherent() to
+ * tell the drivers/of code that all devices are coherent regardless of whether
+ * they have a dma-coherent property.
+ */
+bool arch_of_dma_is_coherent(struct device_node *np)
+{
+ return true;
+}
+#endif
+
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
struct dentry *powerpc_debugfs_root;
EXPORT_SYMBOL(powerpc_debugfs_root);
diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
index 978427a9d5e6..3a4b2949a322 100644
--- a/drivers/of/address.c
+++ b/drivers/of/address.c
@@ -993,6 +993,14 @@ int of_dma_get_range(struct device_node *np, u64 *dma_addr, u64 *paddr, u64 *siz
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_dma_get_range);
+/*
+ * arch_of_dma_is_coherent - Arch hook to determine if device is coherent for DMA
+ */
+bool __weak arch_of_dma_is_coherent(struct device_node *np)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+
/**
* of_dma_is_coherent - Check if device is coherent
* @np: device node
@@ -1002,8 +1010,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_dma_get_range);
*/
bool of_dma_is_coherent(struct device_node *np)
{
- struct device_node *node = of_node_get(np);
+ struct device_node *node;
+
+ if (arch_of_dma_is_coherent(np))
+ return true;
+ np = of_node_get(np);
while (node) {
if (of_property_read_bool(node, "dma-coherent")) {
of_node_put(node);
