On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:22:27PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> +static dma_addr_t arm_iommu_map_resource(struct device *dev,
> + phys_addr_t phys_addr, size_t size,
> + enum dma_data_direction dir, struct dma_attrs *attrs)
> +{
> + struct dma_iommu_mapping *mapping = to_dma_iommu_mapping(dev);
> + dma_addr_t dma_addr;
> + int ret, prot;
> + phys_addr_t addr = phys_addr & PAGE_MASK;
> + int offset = phys_addr & ~PAGE_MASK;
> + int len = PAGE_ALIGN(size + offset);
Shouldn't both of these be unsigned - preferably size_t for len?
> +
> + dma_addr = __alloc_iova(mapping, size);
Is this really correct? What if size = 4095 and offset = 10? Do we
really only need one IOVA page for such a mapping (I count two pages.)
Shouldn't this be "len" ?
> + if (dma_addr == DMA_ERROR_CODE)
> + return dma_addr;
> +
> + prot = __dma_direction_to_prot(dir) | IOMMU_MMIO;
> +
> + ret = iommu_map(mapping->domain, dma_addr, addr, len, prot);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + return dma_addr + offset;
> +fail:
> + __free_iova(mapping, dma_addr, size);
Shouldn't this be "len" as well?
> + return DMA_ERROR_CODE;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * arm_iommu_unmap_resource - unmap a device DMA resource
> + * @dev: valid struct device pointer
> + * @dma_handle: DMA address to resource
> + * @size: size of resource to map
> + * @dir: DMA transfer direction
> + */
> +static void arm_iommu_unmap_resource(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t dma_handle,
> + size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir,
> + struct dma_attrs *attrs)
> +{
> + struct dma_iommu_mapping *mapping = to_dma_iommu_mapping(dev);
> + dma_addr_t iova = dma_handle & PAGE_MASK;
> + int offset = dma_handle & ~PAGE_MASK;
> + int len = PAGE_ALIGN(size + offset);
unsigned/size_t again.
> +
> + if (!iova)
> + return;
> +
> + iommu_unmap(mapping->domain, iova, len);
> + __free_iova(mapping, iova, len);
Here, you free "len" bytes of iova, which is different from above.
> +}
> +
> static void arm_iommu_sync_single_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
> dma_addr_t handle, size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir)
> {
> @@ -1994,6 +2051,9 @@ struct dma_map_ops iommu_ops = {
> .unmap_sg = arm_iommu_unmap_sg,
> .sync_sg_for_cpu = arm_iommu_sync_sg_for_cpu,
> .sync_sg_for_device = arm_iommu_sync_sg_for_device,
> +
> + .map_resource = arm_iommu_map_resource,
> + .unmap_resource = arm_iommu_unmap_resource,
> };
>
> struct dma_map_ops iommu_coherent_ops = {
> @@ -2007,6 +2067,9 @@ struct dma_map_ops iommu_coherent_ops = {
>
> .map_sg = arm_coherent_iommu_map_sg,
> .unmap_sg = arm_coherent_iommu_unmap_sg,
> +
> + .map_resource = arm_iommu_map_resource,
> + .unmap_resource = arm_iommu_unmap_resource,
> };
>
> /**
> --
> 2.8.2
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
