On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 6:44:44 PM CET Will Deacon wrote:
> > @@ -347,6 +348,16 @@ static int __swiotlb_get_sgtable(struct device *dev, struct sg_table *sgt,
> >
> > static int __swiotlb_dma_supported(struct device *hwdev, u64 mask)
> > {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> > + if (dev_is_pci(hwdev)) {
> > + struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(hwdev);
> > + struct pci_host_bridge *br = pci_find_host_bridge(pdev->bus);
> > +
> > + if (br->dev.dma_mask && (*br->dev.dma_mask) &&
> > + (mask & (*br->dev.dma_mask)) != mask)
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +#endif
>
> Hmm, but this makes it look like the problem is both arm64 and swiotlb
> specific, when in reality it's not. Perhaps another hack you could try
> would be to register a PCI bus notifier in the host bridge looking for
> BUS_NOTIFY_BIND_DRIVER, then you could proxy the DMA ops for each child
> device before the driver has probed, but adding a dma_set_mask callback
> to limit the mask to what you need?
>
> I agree that it would be better if dma_set_mask handled all of this
> transparently, but it's all based on the underlying ops rather than the
> bus type.
This is what I prototyped a long time ago when this first came up.
I still think this needs to be solved properly for all of arm64, not
with a PCI specific hack, and in particular not using notifiers.
Arnd
commit 9a57d58d116800a535510053136c6dd7a9c26e25
Author: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Nov 17 14:06:55 2015 +0100
[EXPERIMENTAL] ARM64: check implement dma_set_mask
Needs work for coherent mask
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/device.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/device.h
index 243ef256b8c9..a57e7bb10e71 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/device.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/device.h
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ struct dev_archdata {
void *iommu; /* private IOMMU data */
#endif
bool dma_coherent;
+ u64 parent_dma_mask;
};
struct pdev_archdata {
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
index 290a84f3351f..aa65875c611b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c
@@ -352,6 +352,31 @@ static int __swiotlb_dma_supported(struct device *hwdev, u64 mask)
return 1;
}
+static int __swiotlb_set_dma_mask(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
+{
+ /* device is not DMA capable */
+ if (!dev->dma_mask)
+ return -EIO;
+
+ /* mask is below swiotlb bounce buffer, so fail */
+ if (!swiotlb_dma_supported(dev, mask))
+ return -EIO;
+
+ /*
+ * because of the swiotlb, we can return success for
+ * larger masks, but need to ensure that bounce buffers
+ * are used above parent_dma_mask, so set that as
+ * the effective mask.
+ */
+ if (mask > dev->archdata.parent_dma_mask)
+ mask = dev->archdata.parent_dma_mask;
+
+
+ *dev->dma_mask = mask;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static struct dma_map_ops swiotlb_dma_ops = {
.alloc = __dma_alloc,
.free = __dma_free,
@@ -367,6 +392,7 @@ static struct dma_map_ops swiotlb_dma_ops = {
.sync_sg_for_device = __swiotlb_sync_sg_for_device,
.dma_supported = __swiotlb_dma_supported,
.mapping_error = swiotlb_dma_mapping_error,
+ .set_dma_mask = __swiotlb_set_dma_mask,
};
static int __init atomic_pool_init(void)
@@ -957,6 +983,18 @@ void arch_setup_dma_ops(struct device *dev, u64 dma_base, u64 size,
if (!dev->archdata.dma_ops)
dev->archdata.dma_ops = &swiotlb_dma_ops;
+ /*
+ * we don't yet support buses that have a non-zero mapping.
+ * Let's hope we won't need it
+ */
+ WARN_ON(dma_base != 0);
+
+ /*
+ * Whatever the parent bus can set. A device must not set
+ * a DMA mask larger than this.
+ */
+ dev->archdata.parent_dma_mask = size;
+
dev->archdata.dma_coherent = coherent;
__iommu_setup_dma_ops(dev, dma_base, size, iommu);
}
