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?
- 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;
}
What I can see is that dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent() and etc may fail or succeed
depending on - max_pfn value.
-> max_pfn value depends on memblock configuration
max_pfn = max_high = PFN_DOWN(memblock_end_of_DRAM());
|- PFN_DOWN(memblock.memory.regions[last_idx].base + memblock.memory.regions[last_idx].size)
-> memblock configuration depends on
a) CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=y|n (my system really works with 32 bit address space)
b) RAM configuration
Example 1 CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=n:
memory {
device_type = "memory";
reg = <0x80000000 0x60000000>; /* 1536 MB */
};
memblock will be configured as:
memory.cnt = 0x1
memory[0x0] [0x00000080000000-0x000000dfffffff], 0x60000000 bytes flags: 0x0
^^^^^^^^^^
max_pfn = 0x000E0000
Example 2 CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=n:
memory {
device_type = "memory";
reg = <0x80000000 0x80000000>;
};
memblock will be configured as:
memory.cnt = 0x1
memory[0x0] [0x00000080000000-0x000000fffffffe], 0x7fffffff bytes flags: 0x0
^^^^^^^^^^
max_pfn = 0x000FFFFF
Example 3 CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=y (but system really works with 32 bit address space):
memory {
device_type = "memory";
reg = <0x80000000 0x80000000>;
};
memblock will be configured as:
memory.cnt = 0x1
memory[0x0] [0x00000080000000-0x000000ffffffff], 0x80000000 bytes flags: 0x0
^^^^^^^^^^
max_pfn = 0x00100000
The dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent() will fail in case 'Example 3' and succeed in cases 1,2.
dma-mapping.c --> __dma_supported()
if (sizeof(mask) != sizeof(dma_addr_t) && <== true for all OMAP4+
mask > (dma_addr_t)~0 && <== true for DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
dma_to_pfn(dev, ~0) < max_pfn) { <== true only for Example 3
I've tracked down patch which changes memblock behavior to:
commit eb18f1b5bfb99b1d7d2f5d792e6ee5c9b7d89330
Author: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Dec 8 10:22:07 2011 -0800
memblock: Make memblock functions handle overflowing range @size
This commit is pretty old :( and it doesn't takes into account LPAE mode
where phys_addr_t is 64 bit, but physically accessible addresses <= 40 bit
(memblock_cap_size()).
The issue with omap-pcm was simply fixed by using DMA_BIT_MASK(32), but It seems problem is
wider and above behavior of dma_set_maskX() and memblock confused me a bit.
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).
Thanks.
Additional info:
memblock: Make memblock functions handle overflowing range @size
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/26/235
[alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: omap-pcm: Lower the dma coherent mask to 32bits
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2013-December/069817.html
--
regards,
-grygorii
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
