mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: dma-coherent: use ioremap_wc() for DMA_MEMORY_MAP
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:47:15 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151207164714.GH7083@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4iUHoQ2DRP-K-BA33mjdHwUxY2JX5M1-dP+bN-Rr6ewyQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 08:19:27AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com> wrote:
> > 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().
> 
> I don't see a problem adding a _WC option to memremap.
> 
> The only difference is that it can't replace ioremap_wc.  I.e. unlike
> _WB, and _WT case where ioremap_cache and ioremap_wt are now
> deprecated we'd have ioremap_wc continuing to live alongside
> memremap(..., MEMREMAP_WC).

I think that's fine. The difference is that memory returned by
ioremap_wc() should (in theory) only be accessed with I/O accessors
while the range returned by memremap(MEMREMAP_WC) will be directly
accessible.

-- 
Catalin

      reply	other threads:[~2015-12-07 16:47 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
2015-12-07 16:19         ` Dan Williams
2015-12-07 16:47           ` Catalin Marinas [this message]

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=20151207164714.GH7083@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=brian.starkey@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®