On 12/04/18 10:42, Christian König wrote:
Am 12.04.2018 um 08:26 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 01:03:59PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 10/04/18 21:59, Sinan Kaya wrote:
So why not fix said code? It's clearly not a real hardware
the map_sg() APIs have potentially returned fewer than nents since
Code is expecing to observe the same number of buffers returned from
dma_map_sg() function compared to sg_alloc_table_from_pages(). This
doesn't hold true universally especially for systems with IOMMU.
so there's really no excuse.
Yes, relying on dma_map_sg returning the same number of entries as passed
it is completely bogus.
I agree that the common DRM functions should be able to deal with both,
but we should let the driver side decide if it wants multiple addresses
combined or not.
IOMMU driver tries to combine buffers into a single DMA address as much
as it can. The right thing is to tell the DMA layer how much combining
IOMMU can do.
Disagree; this is a dodgy hack, since you'll now end up passing
scatterlists into dma_map_sg() which already violate max_seg_size to
with, and I think a conscientious DMA API implementation would be at
to fail the mapping for that reason (I know arm64 happens not to, but
was a deliberate design decision to make my life easier at the time).
Sounds like my understanding of max_seg_size is incorrect, what exactly
should that describe?
The segment size and boundary mask are there to represent a device's
hardware scatter-gather capabilities - a lot of things have limits on
the size and alignment of the data pointed to by a single descriptor
(e.g. an xHCI TRB, where the data buffer must not cross a 64KB boundary)
- although they can also be relevant to non-scatter-gather devices if
they just have limits on how big/aligned a single DMA transfer can be.
dri-devel mailing list