On 2025-09-23 at 12:16 +1000, John Hubbard <jhubb...@nvidia.com> wrote...
> On 9/22/25 9:08 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On 9/22/25 1:30 PM, Alistair Popple wrote:
> >> + // SAFETY: No DMA allocations have been made yet
> >
> > It's not really about DMA allocations that have been made previously, there
> > is
> > no unsafe behavior in that.
> >
> > It's about the method must not be called concurrently with any DMA
> > allocation or
> > mapping primitives.
> >
> > Can you please adjust the comment correspondingly?
Sure.
> >> + unsafe { pdev.dma_set_mask_and_coherent(DmaMask::new::<47>())? };
> >
> > As Boqun mentioned, we shouldn't have a magic number for this. I don't know
> > if
> > it will change for future chips, but maybe we should move this to gpu::Spec
> > to
>
> It changes to 52 bits for GH100+ (Hopper/Blackwell+). When I post those
> patches, I'll use a HAL to select the value.
>
> > be safe.
> >
> > At least, create a constant for it (also in gpu::Spec?); in Nouveau I named
> > this
> > NOUVEAU_VA_SPACE_BITS back then. Not a great name, if you have a better
> > idea,
> > please go for it. :)
Well it's certainly not the VA_SPACE width ... that's a different address space
:-)
I thought from the context that the magic number was pretty obviously the
supported DMA address width in bits, especially given the extra decoration
of the DmaMask type. Certainly that's been the accepted practice for the rest
of the kernel where pretty much all drivers just use something of the form
dma_set_mask(drm_dev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(44)) or whatever DMA address widths
they support.
> GPU_DMA_BIT_WIDTH, for now?
Works for me.
> thanks,
> --
> John Hubbard
>
