On 12/02/2020 13:43, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2020-02-12 11:32 am, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 2/12/20 12:01 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
Hi,
On 06/02/2020 13:50, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 2/6/20 12:17 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
On TI Platforms using LPAE, SATA breaks with 64-bit DMA.
Restrict it to 32-bit.
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c b/drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c
index 3aab2e3d57f3..b925dc54cfa5 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c
@@ -62,6 +62,9 @@ static int ahci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "hisilicon,hisi-ahci"))
hpriv->flags |= AHCI_HFLAG_NO_FBS | AHCI_HFLAG_NO_NCQ;
+ if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "snps,dwc-ahci"))
+ hpriv->flags |= AHCI_HFLAG_32BIT_ONLY;
+
The "snps,dwc-ahci" is a generic (non TI specific) compatible which
is e.g. also used on some exynos devices. So using that to key the
setting of the 32 bit flag seems wrong to me.
IMHO it would be better to introduce a TI specific compatible
and use that to match on instead (and also adjust the dts files
accordingly).
Thinking further on this I think it is a bad idea to add a special
binding because the IP is not different. It is just that it is
wired differently on the TI SoC so DMA range is limited.
IMO the proper solution is to have the right dma-ranges property in the
device tree. However, SATA platform driver is doing the wrong thing
by overriding the dma masks.
i.e. in ahci_platform_init_host() in libahci_platform.c >
if (hpriv->cap & HOST_CAP_64) {
rc = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
if (rc) {
rc = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev,
DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
if (rc) {
dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable 64-bit DMA.\n");
return rc;
}
dev_warn(dev, "Enable 32-bit DMA instead of 64-bit.\n");
}
}
This should be removed. Do you agree?
I agree with you in principal, but I'm afraid this might cause regressions for
existing hardware. We only do this if the host has set the CAP_64 flag,
this code is quite old, it comes from the following commit:
###
From cc7a9e27562cd78a1dc885504086fab24addce40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:40:23 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v3] ahci: Check and set 64-bit DMA mask for platform AHCI driver
The current platform AHCI driver does not set the dma_mask correctly
for 64-bit DMA capable AHCI controller. This patch checks the AHCI
capability bit and set the dma_mask and coherent_dma_mask accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Suman Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
###
Presumably this was added for a reason, I'm guessing this might come
from AMD's ARM server chips adventures, but I'm afraid that AHCI support
on other (ARM) SoC's has become to rely on this behavior too.
Maybe we can add a check to see if the mask was not already set and skip
setting the mask in that case ?
If the device *is* inherently 64-bit capable, then setting 64-bit masks in the driver is correct - if a 64-bit IP block happens to have been integrated with only 32 address bits wired up, but the system has memory above the 32-bit boundary, then that should be described via "dma-ranges", which should then end up being used to further constrain the device masks internally to the DMA API.
I agree. In this case, it looks like DMA API is allocating memory > 32-bits
even if "dma-ranges" size and dma_bus_limit is < 32-bits so issue is with
platform DMA code.
I will continue the discussion in the other thread
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/12/907
--
cheers,
-roger
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
