Re: [PATCH 1/3] crypto: marvell/cesa - replace dma_to_phys with dma_map_single
On 3/18/2016 7:25 AM, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 18/03/16 09:30, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:50:20 + >> Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 07:17:24PM -0400, ok...@codeaurora.org wrote: >>>> What is the correct way? I don't want to write engine->sram_dma = sram >>> >>> Well, what the driver _is_ wanting to do is to go from a CPU physical >>> address to a device DMA address. phys_to_dma() looks like the correct >>> thing there to me, but I guess that's just an offset and doesn't take >>> account of any IOMMU that may be in the way. >>> >>> If you have an IOMMU, then the whole phys_to_dma() thing is a total >>> failure as it only does a linear translation, and there are no >>> interfaces in the kernel to take account of an IOMMU in the way. So, >>> it needs something designed for the job, implemented and discussed by >>> the normal methods of proposing a new cross-arch interface for drivers >>> to use. >>> >>> What I'm certain of, though, is that the change proposed in this patch >>> will break current users of this driver: virt_to_page() on an address >>> returned by ioremap() is completely undefined, and will result in >>> either a kernel oops, or if not poking at memory which isn't a struct >>> page, ultimately resulting in something that isn't SRAM being pointed >>> to by "engine->sram_dma". >>> >> >> Or we could just do >> >> engine->sram_dma = res->start; >> >> which is pretty much what the SRAM/genalloc code is doing already. > > As Russell points out this is yet another type of "set up a DMA master to > access something other than kernel RAM" - there's already discussion in > progress over how to handle this for dmaengine slaves[1], so gathering more > use-cases might help distil exactly what the design of > not-strictly-DMA-but-so-closely-coupled-it-can't-really-live-anywhere-else > needs to be. > > Robin. > > [1]:http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-March/414422.html > Thanks for the link. dma_map_resource looks like to be the correct way of doing things. Just from the purist point of view, a driver is not supposed to know the physical address of a DMA address. That kills the intent of using DMA API. When programming descriptors, the DMA addresses should be programmed not physical addresses so that the same driver can be used in a system with IOMMU. The IOMMU DMA ops will remap the DMA address to a bus address that is not physical address. All of this operation needs to be isolated from the device driver. I don't know the architecture or the driver enough to write this. This is not ideally right but I can do this if Boris you are OK with this. engine->sram_dma = res->start; Another option is I can write engine->sram_dma = swiotlb_dma_to_phys(res->start) I agree that dma_map_single is not the right thing. -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/3] crypto: marvell/cesa - replace dma_to_phys with dma_map_single
On 3/18/2016 9:51 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > Another option is I can write > > engine->sram_dma = swiotlb_dma_to_phys(res->start) I realized that I made a mistake in the commit message and the code above. The code is trying to find DMA address from physical address. Not the other way around. I'll fix it on the next version. The correct suggestion above would be engine->sram_dma = swiotlb_phys_to_dmares->start) -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH 1/3] crypto: marvell/cesa - replace dma_to_phys with dma_map_single
Getting ready to remove dma_to_phys API. Drivers should not be using this API for DMA operations. Instead, they should go through the dma_map or dma_alloc APIs. Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <ok...@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/crypto/marvell/cesa.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/crypto/marvell/cesa.c b/drivers/crypto/marvell/cesa.c index c0656e7..52ddfa4 100644 --- a/drivers/crypto/marvell/cesa.c +++ b/drivers/crypto/marvell/cesa.c @@ -350,8 +350,8 @@ static int mv_cesa_get_sram(struct platform_device *pdev, int idx) if (IS_ERR(engine->sram)) return PTR_ERR(engine->sram); - engine->sram_dma = phys_to_dma(cesa->dev, - (phys_addr_t)res->start); + engine->sram_dma = dma_map_single(cesa->dev, engine->sram, + DMA_TO_DEVICE); return 0; } -- 1.8.2.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/3] crypto: marvell/cesa - replace dma_to_phys with dma_map_single
On 3/18/2016 10:20 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:51:37 -0400
> Sinan Kaya <ok...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2016 7:25 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 18/03/16 09:30, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:50:20 +
>>>> Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 07:17:24PM -0400, ok...@codeaurora.org wrote:
>>>>>> What is the correct way? I don't want to write engine->sram_dma = sram
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, what the driver _is_ wanting to do is to go from a CPU physical
>>>>> address to a device DMA address. phys_to_dma() looks like the correct
>>>>> thing there to me, but I guess that's just an offset and doesn't take
>>>>> account of any IOMMU that may be in the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have an IOMMU, then the whole phys_to_dma() thing is a total
>>>>> failure as it only does a linear translation, and there are no
>>>>> interfaces in the kernel to take account of an IOMMU in the way. So,
>>>>> it needs something designed for the job, implemented and discussed by
>>>>> the normal methods of proposing a new cross-arch interface for drivers
>>>>> to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'm certain of, though, is that the change proposed in this patch
>>>>> will break current users of this driver: virt_to_page() on an address
>>>>> returned by ioremap() is completely undefined, and will result in
>>>>> either a kernel oops, or if not poking at memory which isn't a struct
>>>>> page, ultimately resulting in something that isn't SRAM being pointed
>>>>> to by "engine->sram_dma".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or we could just do
>>>>
>>>> engine->sram_dma = res->start;
>>>>
>>>> which is pretty much what the SRAM/genalloc code is doing already.
>>>
>>> As Russell points out this is yet another type of "set up a DMA master to
>>> access something other than kernel RAM" - there's already discussion in
>>> progress over how to handle this for dmaengine slaves[1], so gathering more
>>> use-cases might help distil exactly what the design of
>>> not-strictly-DMA-but-so-closely-coupled-it-can't-really-live-anywhere-else
>>> needs to be.
>>>
>>> Robin.
>>>
>>> [1]:http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-March/414422.html
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the link.
>>
>> dma_map_resource looks like to be the correct way of doing things. Just from
>> the purist point of view, a driver is not supposed to know the physical
>> address
>> of a DMA address. That kills the intent of using DMA API. When programming
>> descriptors,
>> the DMA addresses should be programmed not physical addresses so that the
>> same
>> driver can be used in a system with IOMMU. The IOMMU DMA ops will remap the
>> DMA
>> address to a bus address that is not physical address. All of this operation
>> needs
>> to be isolated from the device driver.
>>
>>
>> I don't know the architecture or the driver enough to write this. This is
>> not ideally
>> right but I can do this if Boris you are OK with this.
>>
>> engine->sram_dma = res->start;
>
> I don't know.
>
> How about waiting for the 'dma_{map,unmap}_resource' discussion to
> settle down before removing phy_to_dma()/dma_to_phys() APIs (as
> suggested by Robin and Russell)?
>
>
Sure, that's fine for me.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
