Re: ARM: OMPA4+: is it expected dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); to fail?

["Grygorii.Strashko@linaro.org" <grygorii.strashko@linaro.org>]

Hi Russell,

On 03/05/2015 10:17 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 08:55:07PM +0200, Grygorii.Strashko@linaro.org wrote:
>> Now I can see very interesting behavior related to dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent()
>> and friends which I'd like to explain and clarify.
>>
>> Below is set of questions I have (why - I explained below):
>> - Is expected dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(DMA_BIT_MASK(64)) and friends to fail on 32 bits HW?
> 
> Not really.
> 
>> - What is expected value for max_pfn: max_phys_pfn or max_phys_pfn + 1?
> 
> mm/page_owner.c:
>          /* Find an allocated page */
>          for (; pfn < max_pfn; pfn++) {
> 
> drivers/base/platform.c:    u32 low_totalram = ((max_pfn - 1) << PAGE_SHIFT);
> drivers/base/platform.c:    u32 high_totalram = ((max_pfn - 1) >> (32 - PAGE_SHIFT));
> 
> So, there's ample evidence that max_pfn is one more than the greatest pfn
> which may be used in the system.
> 
>> - What is expected value for struct memblock_region->size: mem_range_size or mem_range_size - 1?
> 
> A size is a size - it's a number of bytes contained within the region.
> If it is value 1, then there is exactly one byte in the region.  If
> there are 0x7fffffff, then there are 2G-1 bytes in the region, not 2G.

Thanks - it seems clear now.

>> - What is expected value to be returned by memblock_end_of_DRAM():
>>    @base + @size(max_phys_addr + 1) or @base + @size - 1(max_phys_addr)?
> 
> The last address plus one in the system.  However, there's a problem here.
> On a 32-bit system, phys_addr_t may be 32-bit.  If it is 32-bit, then
> "last address plus one" could be zero, which makes no sense.  Hence, it
> is artificially reduced to 0xfffff000, thereby omitting the final page.

^ this part seems not fully true now, because for ARM32 + DT the 
fdt.c->early_init_dt_add_memory_arch() is called instead of arm_add_memory()
 and it works in a different way a bit.

For example, I don't see below message when reg = <0x80000000 0x80000000>:
"Truncating memory at 0x80000000 to fit in 32-bit physical address space"

instead memblock silently configured as
memory.cnt  = 0x1
memory[0x0].base = 0x80000000
memory[0x0].size = 0x7fffffff


> 
>> Example 3 CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=y (but system really works with 32 bit address space):
>> 	memory {
>> 		device_type = "memory";
>> 		reg = <0x80000000 0x80000000>;
>> 	};
>>
>>    memblock will be configured as:
>> 	memory.cnt  = 0x1
>> 	memory[0x0]     [0x00000080000000-0x000000ffffffff], 0x80000000 bytes flags: 0x0
>> 							     ^^^^^^^^^^
>>    max_pfn = 0x00100000
>>
>> The dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent() will fail in case 'Example 3' and succeed in cases 1,2.
>> dma-mapping.c --> __dma_supported()
>> 	if (sizeof(mask) != sizeof(dma_addr_t) && <== true for all OMAP4+
>> 	    mask > (dma_addr_t)~0 &&		<== true for DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
>> 	    dma_to_pfn(dev, ~0) < max_pfn) {  <== true only for Example 3
> 
> Hmm, I think this may make more sense to be "< max_pfn - 1" here, as
> that would be better suited to our intention.
> 
> The result of dma_to_pfn(dev, ~0) is the maximum PFN which we could
> address via DMA, but we're comparing it with the maximum PFN in the
> system plus 1 - so we need to subtract one from it.

Ok. I'll try it.

> 
> Please think about this and test this out; I'm not back to normal yet
> (post-op) so I could very well not be thinking straight yet.

Thanks for your comments. I hope you feel better.

-- 
regards,
-grygorii