Re: use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:15:49AM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-11-04 08:14, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Christoph,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:55:38AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Linux 5.10-rc1 switched from having a single dma offset in struct device
> > > to a set of DMA ranges, and introduced a new helper to set them,
> > > dma_direct_set_offset.
> > >
> > > This in fact surfaced that a bunch of drivers that violate our layering
> > > and set the offset from drivers, which meant we had to reluctantly
> > > export the symbol to set up the DMA range.
> > >
> > > The drivers are:
> > >
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
> > >
> > >This just use dma_direct_set_offset as a fallback. Is there any good
> > >reason to not just kill off the fallback?
> > >
> > > drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun4i-csi/sun4i_csi.c
> > >
> > >Same as above.
> >
> > So, the history of this is:
> >
> >- We initially introduced the support for those two controllers
> > assuming that there was a direct mapping between the physical and
> > DMA addresses. It turns out it didn't and the DMA accesses were
> > going through a secondary, dedicated, bus that didn't have the same
> > mapping of the RAM than the CPU.
> >
> > 4690803b09c6 ("drm/sun4i: backend: Offset layer buffer address by DRAM
> > starting address")
> >
> >- This dedicated bus is undocumented and barely used in the vendor
> > kernel so this was overlooked, and it's fairly hard to get infos on
> > it for all the SoCs we support. We added the DT support for it
> > though on some SoCs we had enough infos to do so:
> >
> > c43a4469402f ("dt-bindings: interconnect: Add a dma interconnect name")
> > 22f88e311399 ("ARM: dts: sun5i: Add the MBUS controller")
> >
> > This explains the check on the interconnect property
> >
> >- However, due to the stable DT rule, we still need to operate without
> > regressions on older DTs that wouldn't have that property (and for
> > SoCs we haven't figured out). Hence the fallback.
>
> How about having something in the platform code that keys off the top-level
> SoC compatible and uses a bus notifier to create offsets for the relevant
> devices if an MBUS description is missing? At least that way the workaround
> could be confined to a single dedicated place and look somewhat similar to
> other special cases like sta2x11, rather than being duplicated all over the
> place.
I'll give it a try, thanks for the suggestion :)
Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:15:49AM +, Robin Murphy wrote: > How about having something in the platform code that keys off the top-level > SoC compatible and uses a bus notifier to create offsets for the relevant > devices if an MBUS description is missing? At least that way the workaround > could be confined to a single dedicated place and look somewhat similar to > other special cases like sta2x11, rather than being duplicated all over the > place. Yes, that would be the right way to handle the issue. ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers
On 2020-11-04 08:14, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi Christoph,
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:55:38AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Linux 5.10-rc1 switched from having a single dma offset in struct device
to a set of DMA ranges, and introduced a new helper to set them,
dma_direct_set_offset.
This in fact surfaced that a bunch of drivers that violate our layering
and set the offset from drivers, which meant we had to reluctantly
export the symbol to set up the DMA range.
The drivers are:
drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
This just use dma_direct_set_offset as a fallback. Is there any good
reason to not just kill off the fallback?
drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun4i-csi/sun4i_csi.c
Same as above.
So, the history of this is:
- We initially introduced the support for those two controllers
assuming that there was a direct mapping between the physical and
DMA addresses. It turns out it didn't and the DMA accesses were
going through a secondary, dedicated, bus that didn't have the same
mapping of the RAM than the CPU.
4690803b09c6 ("drm/sun4i: backend: Offset layer buffer address by DRAM starting
address")
- This dedicated bus is undocumented and barely used in the vendor
kernel so this was overlooked, and it's fairly hard to get infos on
it for all the SoCs we support. We added the DT support for it
though on some SoCs we had enough infos to do so:
c43a4469402f ("dt-bindings: interconnect: Add a dma interconnect name")
22f88e311399 ("ARM: dts: sun5i: Add the MBUS controller")
This explains the check on the interconnect property
- However, due to the stable DT rule, we still need to operate without
regressions on older DTs that wouldn't have that property (and for
SoCs we haven't figured out). Hence the fallback.
How about having something in the platform code that keys off the
top-level SoC compatible and uses a bus notifier to create offsets for
the relevant devices if an MBUS description is missing? At least that
way the workaround could be confined to a single dedicated place and
look somewhat similar to other special cases like sta2x11, rather than
being duplicated all over the place.
Robin.
drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
This driver unconditionally sets the offset. Why can't we do this
in the device tree?
drivers/staging/media/sunxi/cedrus/cedrus_hw.c
Same as above.
We should make those two match the previous ones, but we'll have the
same issue here eventually. Most likely they were never ran on an SoC
for which we have the MBUS figured out.
Maxime
___
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers
Hi Christoph,
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:55:38AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Linux 5.10-rc1 switched from having a single dma offset in struct device
> to a set of DMA ranges, and introduced a new helper to set them,
> dma_direct_set_offset.
>
> This in fact surfaced that a bunch of drivers that violate our layering
> and set the offset from drivers, which meant we had to reluctantly
> export the symbol to set up the DMA range.
>
> The drivers are:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
>
> This just use dma_direct_set_offset as a fallback. Is there any good
> reason to not just kill off the fallback?
>
> drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun4i-csi/sun4i_csi.c
>
> Same as above.
So, the history of this is:
- We initially introduced the support for those two controllers
assuming that there was a direct mapping between the physical and
DMA addresses. It turns out it didn't and the DMA accesses were
going through a secondary, dedicated, bus that didn't have the same
mapping of the RAM than the CPU.
4690803b09c6 ("drm/sun4i: backend: Offset layer buffer address by DRAM
starting address")
- This dedicated bus is undocumented and barely used in the vendor
kernel so this was overlooked, and it's fairly hard to get infos on
it for all the SoCs we support. We added the DT support for it
though on some SoCs we had enough infos to do so:
c43a4469402f ("dt-bindings: interconnect: Add a dma interconnect name")
22f88e311399 ("ARM: dts: sun5i: Add the MBUS controller")
This explains the check on the interconnect property
- However, due to the stable DT rule, we still need to operate without
regressions on older DTs that wouldn't have that property (and for
SoCs we haven't figured out). Hence the fallback.
> drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
>
> This driver unconditionally sets the offset. Why can't we do this
> in the device tree?
>
> drivers/staging/media/sunxi/cedrus/cedrus_hw.c
>
> Same as above.
>
We should make those two match the previous ones, but we'll have the
same issue here eventually. Most likely they were never ran on an SoC
for which we have the MBUS figured out.
Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers
Hi all, Linux 5.10-rc1 switched from having a single dma offset in struct device to a set of DMA ranges, and introduced a new helper to set them, dma_direct_set_offset. This in fact surfaced that a bunch of drivers that violate our layering and set the offset from drivers, which meant we had to reluctantly export the symbol to set up the DMA range. The drivers are: drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c This just use dma_direct_set_offset as a fallback. Is there any good reason to not just kill off the fallback? drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun4i-csi/sun4i_csi.c Same as above. drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c This driver unconditionally sets the offset. Why can't we do this in the device tree? drivers/staging/media/sunxi/cedrus/cedrus_hw.c Same as above. ___ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
