>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/fsl-mc-bus.c >> b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/fsl-mc-bus.c >> index 5ac373c..480b644 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/fsl-mc-bus.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/fsl-mc-bus.c >> @@ -540,7 +540,7 @@ int fsl_mc_device_add(struct dprc_obj_desc *obj_desc, >> >> /* Objects are coherent, unless 'no shareability' flag set. */ >> if (!(obj_desc->flags & DPRC_OBJ_FLAG_NO_MEM_SHAREABILITY)) >> - arch_setup_dma_ops(&mc_dev->dev, 0, 0, NULL, true); >> + arch_setup_dma_ops(&mc_dev->dev, 0, 0, false, NULL, true); >> >> /* >> * The device-specific probe callback will get invoked by device_add() > > Why are these actually calling arch_setup_dma_ops() here in the first > place? Are these all devices that are DMA masters without an OF node?
I don't know, but that's a different topic. This patch just adds argument and sets it to false everywhere but in the location when range should be definitely enforced. >> @@ -126,6 +127,8 @@ void of_dma_configure(struct device *dev, struct >> device_node *np) >> return; >> } >> dev_dbg(dev, "dma_pfn_offset(%#08lx)\n", offset); >> + >> + enforce_range = true; >> } >> >> dev->dma_pfn_offset = offset; > > Hmm, I think when the dma-ranges are missing, we should either enforce > a 32-bit mask, or disallow DMA completely. It's probably too late for > the latter, I wish we had done this earlier in order to force everyone > on ARM64 to have a valid dma-ranges property for any DMA master. This can be done over time. However the very idea of this version of patch is - keep working pieces as-is, thus for now setting enforce_range to false in case of no defined dma-ranges is intentional. What I should re-check is - does rcar dtsi set dma-ranges, and add it if it does not. Nikita
