Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Move window-removing part of remove_ddw into remove_dma_window | From | Leonardo Bras <> | Date | Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:59:14 -0300 |
| |
Hello Alexey, thanks for the feedback!
On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 20:02 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > On 19/06/2020 15:06, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > Move the window-removing part of remove_ddw into a new function > > (remove_dma_window), so it can be used to remove other DMA windows. > > > > It's useful for removing DMA windows that don't create DIRECT64_PROPNAME > > property, like the default DMA window from the device, which uses > > "ibm,dma-window". > > > > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 53 +++++++++++++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c > > index 5e1fbc176a37..de633f6ae093 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c > > @@ -767,25 +767,14 @@ static int __init disable_ddw_setup(char *str) > > > > early_param("disable_ddw", disable_ddw_setup); > > > > -static void remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop) > > +static void remove_dma_window(struct device_node *pdn, u32 *ddw_avail, > > You do not need the entire ddw_avail here, pass just the token you need.
Well, I just emulated the behavior of create_ddw() and query_ddw() as both just pass the array instead of the token, even though they only use a single token.
I think it's to make the rest of the code independent of the design of the "ibm,ddw-applicable" array, and if it changes, only local changes on the functions will be needed.
> Also, despite this particular file, the "pdn" name is usually used for > struct pci_dn (not device_node), let's keep it that way.
Sure, I got confused for some time about this, as we have: static u64 enable_ddw(struct pci_dev *dev, struct device_node *pdn). but on *_ddw() we have "struct pci_dn *pdn".
I will also add a patch that renames those 'struct device_node *pdn' to something like 'struct device_node *parent_dn'.
> > + struct property *win) > > { > > struct dynamic_dma_window_prop *dwp; > > - struct property *win64; > > - u32 ddw_avail[3]; > > u64 liobn; > > - int ret = 0; > > - > > - ret = of_property_read_u32_array(np, "ibm,ddw-applicable", > > - &ddw_avail[0], 3); > > - > > - win64 = of_find_property(np, DIRECT64_PROPNAME, NULL); > > - if (!win64) > > - return; > > - > > - if (ret || win64->length < sizeof(*dwp)) > > - goto delprop; > > + int ret; > > > > - dwp = win64->value; > > + dwp = win->value; > > liobn = (u64)be32_to_cpu(dwp->liobn); > > > > /* clear the whole window, note the arg is in kernel pages */ > > @@ -793,24 +782,44 @@ static void remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop) > > 1ULL << (be32_to_cpu(dwp->window_shift) - PAGE_SHIFT), dwp); > > if (ret) > > pr_warn("%pOF failed to clear tces in window.\n", > > - np); > > + pdn); > > else > > pr_debug("%pOF successfully cleared tces in window.\n", > > - np); > > + pdn); > > > > ret = rtas_call(ddw_avail[2], 1, 1, NULL, liobn); > > if (ret) > > pr_warn("%pOF: failed to remove direct window: rtas returned " > > "%d to ibm,remove-pe-dma-window(%x) %llx\n", > > - np, ret, ddw_avail[2], liobn); > > + pdn, ret, ddw_avail[2], liobn); > > else > > pr_debug("%pOF: successfully removed direct window: rtas returned " > > "%d to ibm,remove-pe-dma-window(%x) %llx\n", > > - np, ret, ddw_avail[2], liobn); > > + pdn, ret, ddw_avail[2], liobn); > > +} > > + > > +static void remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop) > > +{ > > + struct property *win; > > + u32 ddw_avail[3]; > > + int ret = 0; > > + > > + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(np, "ibm,ddw-applicable", > > + &ddw_avail[0], 3); > > + if (ret) > > + return; > > + > > + win = of_find_property(np, DIRECT64_PROPNAME, NULL); > > + if (!win) > > + return; > > + > > + if (win->length >= sizeof(struct dynamic_dma_window_prop)) > > Any good reason not to make it "=="? Is there something optional or we > expect extension (which may not grow from the end but may add cells in > between). Thanks,
Well, it comes from the old behavior of remove_ddw(): - if (ret || win64->length < sizeof(*dwp)) - goto delprop;
As I reversed the logic from 'if (test) go out' to 'if (!test) do stuff', I also reversed (a < b) to !(a < b) => (a >= b).
I have no problem changing that to '==', but it will produce a different behavior than before.
> > > > + remove_dma_window(np, ddw_avail, win); > > + > > + if (!remove_prop) > > + return; > > > > -delprop: > > - if (remove_prop) > > - ret = of_remove_property(np, win64); > > + ret = of_remove_property(np, win); > > if (ret) > > pr_warn("%pOF: failed to remove direct window property: %d\n", > > np, ret); > >
Best regards, Leonardo
| |