[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/7] of: configure the platform device dma_mask and dma_pfn_offset
Arnd, Rob,

On Friday 14 March 2014 01:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 14 March 2014, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Arnd Bergmann <> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 12 March 2014 15:19:48 Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>>> 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.
> Ok, good point.
>>>>>> 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.
> Ok
>> 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).
> Now I'm confused about what dma_set_mask is actually supposed to do here.
> I /think/ it should fail the DMA_MASK(64) call if the bus supports
> less than 64 bits as in the above example. However it seems like a
> valid shortcut to always succeed here if the effective mask covers
> all of the installed RAM.
> That would mean that even if we only have a 32-bit bus, but all RAM
> resides below 4GB, a call to dma_set_mask using DMA_MASK(64) would
> also succeed.
>>> ...
>>> };
>>> 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.
> Ah, of course.
>>> 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).
> Right.
>>> /* 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.
> Hmm, I've never even heard of that interface.
>>>> 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.
> Hmm, I was rather thinking we should mirror what we have for the "ranges"
> property where an empty property signifies that there are no restrictions
> and the parent and child bus have the same view.
> In case of "ranges", the absence of the property means that there is
> no possible translation, but we can't do that for "dma-ranges" because
> that would break every single 32-bit SoC in existence today.
> Defining this case to mean "only 32-bit translations are possible" is
> a bit hacky but I think it would be a more pragmatic approach.
>>>> [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.
> I think we try to describe them as good as we can if we have access to
> the documentation. I keep hearing people mention the case where the
> slave side is different from the master side, but is that actually
> a common scenario? If it's as rare as I suspect, we can fake a hierarchy
> for the cases we need, but describe most of them correctly.
Looks like we don't have agreement here on the mask setup. Whats the
way forward. I really like to get some sort of support so that
the dma address translation is possible as needed for Keystone.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-25 20:21    [W:0.282 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site