lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/7] of: configure the platform device dma_mask and dma_pfn_offset
From
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 March 2014 15:19:48 Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> On 03/12/2014 02:15 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> >> On Saturday 08 March 2014, Rob Herring wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> a) Follow what we do for PCI devices: assume that we can do DMA_MASK(32)
>> >>>> on any device, and have drivers call dma_set_mask(DMA_MASK(64)) on devices
>> >>>> that would like to do more than that, or call e.g. dma_set_mask(DMA_MASK(28))
>> >>>> for devices that can do less than 32 bit, as given in the argument. This
>> >>>> approach would be most consistent with the way PCI works, but it doesn't
>> >>>> really work well for the case where the mask is less than 32-bit and the
>> >>>> device driver doesn't know that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> b) Never have to call dma_set_mask() for platform devices and assume that the
>> >>>> platform code sets it up correctly. This would probably be the simpler
>> >>>> solution, and I can't think of any downsides at the moment.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't think we want this. In the case of setting up 64-bit masters,
>> >>> it is typically the device that knows if it can do 64-bit DMA either
>> >>> thru a capabilities register or compatible value. That device specific
>> >>> knowledge should really stay within the device's driver.
>> >>
>> >> So you think we should still set a 64-bit mask in the "ranges" property
>> >> for devices that can only do 32-bit and let the driver figure it out?
>> >
>> > No, I think option a makes more sense.
>
> Ok.
>
>> > BTW, don't you mean dma-ranges?
>
> Yes, sorry about the confusion.
>
>> > A device has it's own mask which is typically going to be 32 or
>> > 64-bit. The core code may not know what the device supports, so the
>> > device has to set it's own mask. I don't see a way around that. DT is
>> > not a good option because it is discoverable in some cases.
>
> What is "it"? Do you mean the mask of the device is discoverable,
> or something else?

Right, the mask of the device (before applying any restrictions of the
bus) is discoverable.

>> > Isn't the question here how do we handle restrictions added by the
>> > bus? It seems while this series adds support for handling dma-ranges
>> > to set the default case, it also needs to handle when the driver sets
>> > the mask. Is this not simply a matter of having dma_set_mask also
>> > parse dma-ranges (or reuse a saved bus mask)?
>
> With the current proposed implementation, the device also has to set
> a "dma-ranges" property to get any DMA support, we don't just take
> the mask of the parent bus. This is important because the translation
> does not have to be 1:1 but there can be an offset between the device
> and the parent. I'd prefer to leave this explicit.

But according to Ben H, dma-ranges is a bridge (i.e. parent) property
and not a device property[1]. So I don't think the device's mask
(again, before any bus restrictions) belongs in DT. A given IP block
is going to have some number of address bits for DMA. How it is hooked
up into an SOC is a separate issue. The driver should know its mask
whether it is fixed, discoverable, or tied to the compatible string.

Santosh's patch only looks for dma-ranges in parent nodes which I
believe is correct.

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-March/088881.html

>> >> I think this approach is much less useful for platform devices than it is
>> >> for PCI devices, where we don't explicitly describe the "ranges" for each
>> >> device. Are you thinking of off-chip or on-chip DMA masters here? If
>> >> on-chip, I don't think it's likely that we would end up with different
>> >> versions of the chip that have the same device on there but not the
>> >> same DMA capabilities.
>> >
>> > Sounds like a challenge to h/w designers. :)
>> >
>> > I'm mainly thinking about the midway case where all masters are 32-bit
>> > except AHCI which is 64-bit. The core libahci sets the mask based on
>> > the capabilities register regardless of PCI or platform bus. Requiring
>> > this to be setup by the platform or in the DT seems like a step
>> > backwards. A slightly more complicated case would be something like
>> > midway, but with RAM starting at say 2GB and DMA masters have the same
>> > view as the cpu (i.e. no offset). Then the platform does need to set
>> > the mask to (2^31 -1).
>
> So how would you show this in DT? I'd assume that some of the other
> devices on midway have drivers that may also try to set a 64-bit mask,
> like EHCI for instance does. Is AHCI the only one that sits on a 64-bit
> wide bus, like this?
>
> axi {
> #address-cells = <2>;
> #size-cells = <2>;
> dma-ranges = <0 0 0 0 0x100 0>; /* max phys address space */
>
> ahci {
> dma-ranges = <0 0 0 0 0x100 0>;

There is no point to this dma-ranges here. Based on the capabilities
reg, we know that we can do either 32 or 64 bit DMA. In the case of
64-bit DMA, the device should try to set its mask to DMA_MASK(64), but
the parent dma-ranges should restrict that to DMA_MASK(40).

> ...
> };
>
> ahb {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <1>;

This would need to be 2. ePAPR says the size cells size is determined
by #size-cells in the same node.

> dma-ranges = <0 0 0 0x1 0>; /* only 4GB */
>
> ehci {
> dma-ranges = <0 0 0xffffffff>;

Again, I don't think this is needed. Here, regardless of the device's
capabilities, the bus is restricting the mask to DMA_MASK(32).

> /* side-question: is that the right way
> to describe 4GB length? it seems missing
> a byte */
> };
> };
> };
>
> BTW, I hope I understood you right that you wouldn't actually trust the
> capabilities register by itself but only allow setting the 64-bit mask
> in the arch code if the DT doesn't have any information about the
> bus being incapable of doing this, right?

Ideally no, but it appears we are ATM for midway. We get away with it
since it is midway/highbank specific driver setup and know there are
not any restrictions in addressing RAM. I think we have to keep bus
and device masks separate and the final mask is the AND of them. There
isn't really a construct to do this currently AFAICT. dma_set_mask
could be modified to adjust the mask, but that would be a change in
how dma_set_mask works as it is supposed to fail if the requested mask
cannot be supported.

Perhaps using dma_get_required_mask to parse dma-ranges would be
appropriate here? It doesn't seem widely used though.

>
>> mask has to be (2^32 -1).
>
> Right.
>
>> I'd like to add my 5 cents here :)
>> First of all this solution is pretended to be generic, so by default it
>> can't handle all possible cases (corner cases) - only widely used.
>> Arch or driver can always fix up it through bus notifier or driver's probe.
>
> Right, but we should strive to avoid that.
>
>> Second, it works only for DT-boot case when devices instantiated from DT in generic way.
>> So, if any bus creates devices in its own way - proper DMA configuration of such
>> devices will be private problem of this bus.
>
> True as well. Do you see any buses besides platform, amba and PCI that need
> to describe bus masters?
>
>> I've tried to formulate possible use cases which can be and can't be covered
>> by this approach:
>> [1] 32 bit SoC:
>> - no DMA range limitation: DMA range has to be absent or be equal to RAM
>> (default DMA configuration will be applied)
>>
>> - DMA range present and It's defined inside RAM (no address translation needed):
>> DMA range can be present and depending on its size
>> dma_mask will be equal or less than DMA_MASK(32).
>> (default DMA configuration will be applied - if DMA range isn't present)
>>
>> - DMA range present and It's defined outside of RAM (address translation needed):
>> DMA range has to be present and depending on its size
>> dma_mask will be equal or less than DMA_MASK(32); and dma_pfn_offset will be calculated.
>>
>> Compatibility issues:
>> - Old DT without DMA properties defined and DMA range is defined outside of RAM:
>> arch or drivers code has to provide proper address translation routines.
>
> Can you clarify what you mean by "outside of RAM"? Is this the IOMMU case, no-IOMMU
> but offset, or both?
>
>> [2] 64 bit SOC (only 64 bit masters):
>> - no DMA range limitation: DMA range has to be present and equal to RAM
>>
>> - DMA range present and It's defined inside RAM (no address translation needed):
>> DMA range has to be present and depending on its size
>> dma_mask will be equal or less than DMA_MASK(64).
>>
>> - DMA range present and It's defined outside of RAM (address translation needed):
>> DMA range has to be present and depending on its size
>> dma_mask will be equal or less than DMA_MASK(64); and dma_pfn_offset will be calculated.
>>
>> Compatibility issues:
>> - Old DT without DMA properties defined: Drivers may still need to call dma_set_mask(DMA_MASK(64)
>> - Old DT without DMA properties defined and DMA range is defined outside of RAM:
>> arch or drivers code still has to provide proper address translation routines.
>
> 64-bit SOC includes 32-bit CPU with LPAE, right?
>
> Would you want to allow dma_set_mask(DMA_MASK(64)) to succeed in the absence
> of the dma-ranges properties?

Yes, because the default should be no restrictions are imposed by the
bus. DT should describe the restrictions or translations. The default
should be masters have the same view of memory map as the cpu and can
use all address bits the device has.

>
>> [3] 64 bit SOC (only 32 bit masters):
>>
>> - DMA range is present and It's defined inside RAM (no address translation needed):
>> DMA range can be absent - default DMA configuration will be applied.
>>
>> - DMA range present and It's defined outside of RAM (address translation needed):
>> DMA range has to be present and depending on its size
>> dma_mask will be equal or less than DMA_MASK(32); and dma_pfn_offset will be calculated.
>>
>> Compatibility issues:
>> - Old DT without DMA properties defined and DMA range is defined outside of RAM:
>> arch or drivers code has to provide proper address translation routines.
>>
>>
>> [4] 64 bit SOC (32 bit and 64 masters):
>> - This is combination of above 2,3 cases.
>> The current approach will allow to handle it by defining two buses in DT
>> "simple-bus32" and "simple-bus64", and each one should have its own DMA properties
>> defined in DT.
>
> We already try to describe the hierarchy of the buses, and only AXI4 buses can be
> 64-bit, unlike AHB or other types of AMBA buses AFAIK. We should just call them
> what they are.

I don't think we do describe the hierarchy. We are describing the
slave side which is not necessarily the same as the master side.
Internal buses are also much more complex than any of the SOCs
describe in their DT.

>
>> - The worst case will be if some device is able to change its DMA configuration
>> dynamically by reading its DMA configuration from HW. The main difficulties will
>> be to handle DMA addresses translation properly in this case. But, in my opinion,
>> such behavior will be needed in very rare case as DT has to describe specific SoC
>> and such device has to belong to only one bus as per SoC specification.
>>
>> Compatibility issues:
>> - Old DT without DMA properties defined and 32 bits DMA range is defined outside of RAM:
>> arch or drivers code has to provide proper address translation routines.
>>
>> As per above, this approach will allow to handle most of cases and configure DMA properly
>> with one exception - device is able to change its DMA configuration dynamically.
>>
>> Also, for compatibility reasons, arches and drivers may need to continue maintain their own
>> DMA addresses translation routines to support the case
>> "Old DT without DMA properties defined and DMA range is defined outside of RAM".
>
> Can we try to list all the platforms we already support in Linux? There should not be
> a lot of examples of 64-bit SoCs, as we don't really support any /hardware/ in arm64
> properly (apm xgene is incomplete enough that we don't have to worry about breaking it).
>
> The ones I see are
>
> midway
> armada xp
> keystone 2
> r-car
>
> It may be easier to see what their individual requirements are for backwards
> compatibility. Some might never have shipped with more than 4GB, and in that
> case we don't care at all. I believe exynos5 and tc2 are in that category,
> so I didn't even list them.
>
> Arnd


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-14 15:41    [W:0.140 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site