From: Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: dma-coherent: use ioremap_wc() for DMA_MEMORY_MAP
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:28:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151207132823.GC13179@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151204171554.GO10123@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 05:15:54PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 08:59:10AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 02:20:26PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
>> >> When the DMA_MEMORY_MAP flag is used, memory which can be accessed
>> >> directly should be returned, so use ioremap_wc() instead of ioremap().
>> >> Also, ensure that the correct memset operation is used in
>> >> dma_alloc_from_coherent() with respect to the region's flags.
>> >>
>> >> This fixes the below alignment fault on arm64, caused by invalid use
>> >> of memset() on Device memory.
>> >
>> > This is indeed affecting both arm32 and arm64 systems.
>> >
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/dma-coherent.c b/drivers/base/dma-coherent.c
>> >> index 55b8398..45358d0 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/base/dma-coherent.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/base/dma-coherent.c
>> >> @@ -31,7 +31,10 @@ static int dma_init_coherent_memory(phys_addr_t phys_addr, dma_addr_t device_add
>> >> if (!size)
>> >> goto out;
>> >>
>> >> - mem_base = ioremap(phys_addr, size);
>> >> + if (flags & DMA_MEMORY_MAP)
>> >> + mem_base = ioremap_wc(phys_addr, size);
>> >> + else
>> >> + mem_base = ioremap(phys_addr, size);
>> >
>> > I wonder whether a memremap() approach for the DMA_MEMORY_MAP case would
>> > be better. This API was added recently by commit 92281dee825f ("arch:
>> > introduce memremap()"). It only supports write-back and write-through
>> > but we could add a MEMREMAP_WC flag for this case.
>>
>> I originally included both MEMREMAP_WC and MEMREAMP_UC as potential
>> flags to this api, but ultimately decided against it. The memremap()
>> api is meant for memory that is known to have no i/o side effects. As
>> far as I can see WC and UC usages are a muddy mix of "sometimes
>> there's I/O side effects, but it depends by arch and driver". In
>> other words we can't drop the "__iomem" annotation from WC and UC
>> mappings by default.
The DMA_MEMORY_MAP flag is pretty much a statement of "no side-
effects", so as Catalin says it would fit OK here. That said, if it's
not possible to deprecate ioremap_wc() in the same way as
ioremap_cache() then I wonder if there's even much benefit in adding
it to memremap().
>
>In this context, the dma_declare_coherent_memory(DMA_MEMORY_MAP)
>implementation is aimed at normal RAM with no side effects as later
>returned by dma_alloc_coherent(). To me it looks like memremap is better
>suited here for the DMA_MEMORY_MAP case. As per the
>Documentation/DMA-API.txt:
>
> DMA_MEMORY_MAP - request that the memory returned from
> dma_alloc_coherent() be directly writable.
>
>which means no __iomem. Of course, we still need ioremap for
>DMA_MEMORY_IO which is supposed to be written with memcpy_toio() etc.
>
>Which memory type should be used is left to the driver and it should
>pass the corresponding DMA_MEMORY_* flag.
>
This can still be achieved without adding _WC to memremap(). I can
look at adding _WC to memremap() if that's deemed the preferred
approach, but if that isn't clear-cut, then it would be nice to get
this bug fixed now and worry about adding it to memremap() later.
-Brian
>-- Catalin
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-07 13:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-20 14:20 Brian Starkey
2015-12-04 10:37 ` Brian Starkey
2015-12-04 10:50 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-12-04 16:59 ` Dan Williams
2015-12-04 17:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-12-07 13:28 ` Brian Starkey [this message]
2015-12-07 16:19 ` Dan Williams
2015-12-07 16:47 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151207132823.GC13179@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=brian.starkey@arm.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®