Hi Bjorn, Thank you. Please find my reply below. On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:25 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 12:30:38PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 08:43:32AM +0530, Srinath Mannam wrote: > > > Few SOCs have limitation that their PCIe host can't allow few inbound > > > address ranges. Allowed inbound address ranges are listed in dma-ranges > > > DT property and this address ranges are required to do IOVA mapping. > > > Remaining address ranges have to be reserved in IOVA mapping. > > > > > > PCIe Host driver of those SOCs has to list resource entries of allowed > > > address ranges given in dma-ranges DT property in sorted order. This > > > sorted list of resources will be processed and reserve IOVA address for > > > inaccessible address holes while initializing IOMMU domain. > > > > > > This patch set is based on Linux-5.0-rc2. > > > > > > Changes from v3: > > > - Addressed Robin Murphy review comments. > > > - pcie-iproc: parse dma-ranges and make sorted resource list. > > > - dma-iommu: process list and reserve gaps between entries > > > > > > Changes from v2: > > > - Patch set rebased to Linux-5.0-rc2 > > > > > > Changes from v1: > > > - Addressed Oza review comments. > > > > > > Srinath Mannam (3): > > > PCI: Add dma_ranges window list > > > iommu/dma: Reserve IOVA for PCIe inaccessible DMA address > > > PCI: iproc: Add sorted dma ranges resource entries to host bridge > > > > > > drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/pci/controller/pcie-iproc.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > drivers/pci/probe.c | 3 +++ > > > include/linux/pci.h | 1 + > > > 4 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Bjorn, Joerg, > > > > this series should not affect anything in the mainline other than its > > consumer (ie patch 3); if that's the case should we consider it for v5.2 > > and if yes how are we going to merge it ? > > I acked the first one I will send new patch with change in commit message as per your comment. "s/bridge This list/bridge, this list/" > > Robin reviewed the second > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e6c812d6-0cad-4cfd-defd-d7ec427a6538@xxxxxxx) > (though I do agree with his comment about DMA_BIT_MASK()), Joerg was OK > with it if Robin was > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190423145721.GH29810@xxxxxxxxxx). > I will send patch, for "DMA_BIT_MASK(sizeof(dma_addr_t) * BITS_PER_BYTE)" change to "~(dma_addr_t)0". > Eric reviewed the third (and pointed out a typo). I will send a new patch to address this typo. > > My Kconfiggery never got fully answered -- it looks to me as though it's > possible to build pcie-iproc without the DMA hole support, and I thought > the whole point of this series was to deal with those holes > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190418234241.GF126710@xxxxxxxxxx). I would > have expected something like making pcie-iproc depend on IOMMU_SUPPORT. > But Srinath didn't respond to that, so maybe it's not an issue and it > should only affect pcie-iproc anyway. I am sorry to miss to respond.. In NO-IOMMU case, All inbound addresses allocated from dma APIs are physical addresses of DDR. All DDR physical addresses are fall inside given dma-ranges. so that, without IOMMU_SUPPORT, will not be any issue. Regards, Srinath. > > So bottom line, I'm fine with merging it for v5.2. Do you want to merge > it, Lorenzo, or ...? > > Bjorn
