Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: Clean up dma_get_required_mask() hooks
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date: 2018-07-10 15:08:24
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-iommu
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 01:29:20PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
quoted
What I've done is to: 1) provide the get_required_mask unconditionally in struct dma_map_ops 2) default to what is the current dma_get_required_mask implementation if nothing else is specified.Yeah, there's already 17 pointers in dma_map_ops of which about half are optional, so these awkward #ifdefs to save one more probably aren't worth the inconsistency they bring. It feels like this guy mostly goes hand-in-hand with dma_supported, so ack to giving it the same look and feel.
This whole area needs a major refactoring - we currentl have three different APIs to deal with addressability: dma_get_required_mask, dma_capable/dma_set_mask and dma_capable from dma-direct.h, and there is plenty of unexplainable mismatches between them. Sorting this out has been on my TODO list, but I think it can only effectively be done once the direct mapping implementations are reasonably consolidated.
quoted
What I still had on my todo list but not done yet: 3) go through all instances and check if the current default makes sense, at it based on direct addressability. For most iommu instances it seems like we should just return a 64-bit mask.That's reasonable, although in many cases we should know the effective IOMMU input address size which would be even neater.
Sure. Maybe I just need to steps 1 and 2 and let maintainers fill in.
quoted
4) figure out how to take the dma offsets into account for itAFAICS it might boil down to simply: mask = roundup_pow_of_two(phys_to_dma(dev, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn))) - 1;
That looks way to sensible. Which reminds me that I need to research the history behind the low_totalram/high_totalram magic in dma_get_required_mask.