On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:52 AM Robin Murphy [off-list ref] wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:16, Rob Herring wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:30 AM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 16:09 +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
quoted
On 25/09/2019 15:52, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 16:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:12 PM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi All,
this series tries to address one of the issues blocking us from
upstreaming Broadcom's STB PCIe controller[1]. Namely, the fact that
devices not represented in DT which sit behind a PCI bus fail to get the
bus' DMA addressing constraints.
This is due to the fact that of_dma_configure() assumes it's receiving a
DT node representing the device being configured, as opposed to the PCIe
bridge node we currently pass. This causes the code to directly jump
into PCI's parent node when checking for 'dma-ranges' and misses
whatever was set there.
To address this I create a new API in OF - inspired from Robin Murphys
original proposal[2] - which accepts a bus DT node as it's input in
order to configure a device's DMA constraints. The changes go deep into
of/address.c's implementation, as a device being having a DT node
assumption was pretty strong.
On top of this work, I also cleaned up of_dma_configure() removing its
redundant arguments and creating an alternative function for the special
cases
not applicable to either the above case or the default usage.
IMO the resulting functions are more explicit. They will probably
surface some hacky usages that can be properly fixed as I show with the
DT fixes on the Layerscape platform.
This was also tested on a Raspberry Pi 4 with a custom PCIe driver and
on a Seattle AMD board.
Humm, I've been working on this issue too. Looks similar though yours
has a lot more churn and there's some other bugs I've found.
That's good news, and yes now that I see it, some stuff on my series is
overly
complicated. Specially around of_translate_*().
On top of that, you removed in of_dma_get_range():
- /*
- * At least empty ranges has to be defined for parent node if
- * DMA is supported
- */
- if (!ranges)
- break;
Which I assumed was bound to the standard and makes things easier.
quoted
Can you test out this branch[1]. I don't have any h/w needing this,
but wrote a unittest and tested with modified QEMU.
I reviewed everything, I did find a minor issue, see the patch attached.
WRT that patch, the original intent of "force_dma" was purely to
consider a device DMA-capable regardless of the presence of
"dma-ranges". Expecting of_dma_configure() to do anything for a non-OF
device has always been bogus - magic paravirt devices which appear out
of nowhere and expect to be treated as genuine DMA masters are a
separate problem that we haven't really approached yet.
I agree it's clearly abusing the function. I have no problem with the behaviour
change if it's OK with you.
Thinking about it, you could probably just remove that call from the Xen
DRM driver now anyway - since the dma-direct rework, we lost the ability
to set dma_dummy_ops by default, and NULL ops now represent what it
(presumably) wants.
Not xen_dma_ops? In any case, I'll send out a patch for the the Xen
folks to comment on.
quoted
quoted
Robin, have you looked into supporting multiple dma-ranges? It's the next thing
we need for BCM STB's PCIe. I'll have a go at it myself if nothing is in the
works already.
Multiple dma-ranges as far as configuring inbound windows should work
already other than the bug when there's any parent translation. But if
you mean supporting multiple DMA offsets and masks per device in the
DMA API, there's nothing in the works yet.
There's also the in-between step of making of_dma_get_range() return a
size based on all the dma-ranges entries rather than only the first one
- otherwise, something like [1] can lead to pretty unworkable default
masks. We implemented that when doing acpi_dma_get_range(), it's just
that the OF counterpart never caught up.
Right. I suppose we assume any holes in the ranges are addressable by
the device but won't get used for other reasons (such as no memory
there). However, to be correct, the range of the dma offset plus mask
would need to be within the min start and max end addresses. IOW,
while we need to round up (0xa_8000_0000 - 0x2c1c_0000) to the next
power of 2, the 'correct' thing to do is round down.
Rob
[1]
http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-rm.git;a=commitdiff;h=a2814af56b3486c2985a95540a88d8f9fa3a699f
_______________________________________________
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno