On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 09:54:14AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-08-31 09:36, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 2022-08-29 16:28, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > +static int bt1_pcie_add_port(struct bt1_pcie *btpci)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct device *dev = &btpci->pdev->dev;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * DW PCIe Root Port controller is equipped with eDMA capable of
> > > > + * working with the 64-bit memory addresses.
> > > > + */
> > > > + ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > >
> > > Is this the right place to set the DMA mask for the host controller
> > > embedded DMA controller (actually, the dev pointer is the _host_
> > > controller device) ?
> > >
> > > How this is going to play when combined with:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/1e63a581-14ae-b4b5-a5bf-ca8f09c33af6@xxxxxxx
> > >
> > > It is getting a bit confusing. I believe the code in the link
> > > above sets the mask so that through the DMA API we are capable
> > > of getting an MSI doorbell virtual address whose physical address
> > > can be addressed by the endpoint; this through the DMA API.
> > >
> > > This patch is setting the DMA mask for a different reason, namely
> > > setting the host controller embedded DMA controller addressing
> > > capabilities.
> > >
> > > AFAICS - both approaches set the mask for the same device - now
> > > the question is about which one is legitimate and how to handle
> > > the other.
> >
> > Assuming the dw-edma-pcie driver is the relevant one, that already sets
> > its own masks on its own device, so I also don't see why this is here.
>
> Ah, I just found the patch at [1], which further implies that this is indeed
> completely bogus.
Really? Elaborate please. What you said in the comment to that patch
has nothing to do with the change you comment here.
-Sergey
>
> Robin.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/dmaengine/20220822185332.26149-23-Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
