Hi Loic,
On 7/27/18 8:14 AM, Loic Pallardy wrote:
> If there is no IOMMU associate to remote processor device,
> remoteproc_core won't be able to satisfy device address requested
> in firmware resource table.
> Return an error as configuration won't be coherent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx>
This patch is breaking my Davinci platforms. It is not really required
that you _should_ have IOMMUs when a valid DA is mentioned. Please see
the existing description (paras 4 and 5) on the fw_rsc_carveout
kerneldoc in remoteproc.h file.
We do have platforms where we have some internal sub-modules within the
remote processor sub-system that provides some linear
address-translation (most common case with 32-bit processors supporting
64-bit addresses). Also, we have some upcoming SoCs where we have an MMU
but is not programmable by Linux.
There is one comment there, but I don't think this is actually handled
in the current remoteproc core.
"If @da is set to
* FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY, then the host will dynamically allocate it, and then
* overwrite @da with the dynamically allocated address."
regards
Suman
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 4cd1a8e..437fabf 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -657,7 +657,15 @@ static int rproc_handle_carveout(struct rproc *rproc,
> * to use the iommu-based DMA API: we expect 'dma' to contain the
> * physical address in this case.
> */
> - if (rproc->domain) {
> +
> + if (rsc->da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && !rproc->domain) {
> + dev_err(dev->parent,
> + "Bad carveout rsc configuration\n");
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto dma_free;
> + }
> +
> + if (rsc->da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && rproc->domain) {
> mapping = kzalloc(sizeof(*mapping), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!mapping) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
>
