Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 05/16] net: mvpp2: introduce PPv2.2 HW descriptors and adapt accessors
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Date: 2017-01-06 14:44:56
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-devicetree
On 06/01/17 14:29, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 05:46:21PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:quoted
This commit adds the definition of the PPv2.2 HW descriptors, adjusts the mvpp2_tx_desc and mvpp2_rx_desc structures accordingly, and adapts the accessors to work on both PPv2.1 and PPv2.2. Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <redacted>...quoted
+ /* On PPv2.2, the situation is more complicated, + * because there is only 40 bits to store the virtual + * address, which is not sufficient. So on 64 bits + * systems, we use phys_to_virt() to get the virtual + * address from the physical address, which is fine + * because the kernel linear mapping includes the + * entire 40 bits physical address space. On 32 bits + * systems however, we can't use phys_to_virt(), but + * since virtual addresses are 32 bits only, there is + * enough space in the RX descriptor for the full + * virtual address. + */ +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT + dma_addr_t dma_addr = + rx_desc->pp22.buf_phys_addr_key_hash & DMA_BIT_MASK(40); + phys_addr_t phys_addr = + dma_to_phys(port->dev->dev.parent, dma_addr);
Ugh, this looks bogus. dma_to_phys(), in the arm64 case at least, is essentially a SWIOTLB internal helper function which has to be implemented in architecture code because reasons. Calling it from a driver is almost certainly wrong (it doesn't even exist on most architectures). Besides, if this is really a genuine dma_addr_t obtained from a DMA API call, you cannot infer it to be related to a CPU physical address, or convertible to one at all.
quoted
+ + return (unsigned long)phys_to_virt(phys_addr); +#else + return rx_desc->pp22.buf_cookie_misc & DMA_BIT_MASK(40); +#endifI'm not sure that's the best way of selecting the difference.
Given that CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT could be enabled on 32-bit LPAE systems, indeed it definitely isn't. Robin.
It seems
that the issue here is the size of the virtual address, so why not test
the size of a virtual address pointer?
if (8 * sizeof(rx_desc) > 40) {
/* do phys addr dance */
} else {
return rx_desc->pp22.buf_cookie_misc & DMA_BIT_MASK(40);
}
It also means that we get compile coverage over both sides of the
conditional.