Regression (ARM) arch/arm/mm/init.c doesn't build without CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT.

[santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)]

On Monday 06 January 2014 08:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 06:42:13PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Monday 06 January 2014 05:39 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 08:28:20PM +0100, Krzysztof Ha?asa wrote:
>>>> Russell, Santosh,
>>>>
>>>> the unneeded commit causing regression is still in place. Please try to
>>>> compile an ARM kernel without CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT and with
>>>> CONFIG_ZONE_DMA and see for yourself, if you don't believe me.
>>>>
>>>> Please be aware that this commit fixes nothing, its only function is
>>>> causing the regression - so we don't lose anything by reverting it.
>>>>
>>>> If the attached wasn't clear, what the defective commit presently does
>>>> is changing a perfectly valid code into a code referencing a variable
>>>> which (without CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT set) doesn't at all exist.
>>>>
>>>> With CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT set, this commit does precisely nothing.
>>>
> 
> /--------------------------------------------------------------
> | > > Right, so, with Assabet, which has CONFIG_DMA_ZONE=y and
> | > > CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT=y:
> | > > 
> | > > $ make O=../build/assabet arch/arm/mm/init.i
> | > > 
> | > > gives:
> | > >   arm_dma_limit = __pv_phys_offset + arm_dma_zone_size - 1;
> | > > 
> | > > with or without Santosh's patch.
> \--------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> May be I missed your point but I ended up creating the patch because
>> the CMA reservation was failing on Keystone since the arm_dma_limit
>> wasn't right since it wasn't considering the actual __pv_phys_offset.
>>
>> Isn't that an issue ?
> 
> See the above.  Your patch has _no_ effect what so ever when
> CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT=y - which you have on the Keystone, right?
> 
> If you don't believe me, ask make to produce arch/arm/mm/init.i, which
> is the output from the preprocessor, comparing the resulting generated
> file both with and without your patch applied.
> 
Looks like you are right. I did two fixes to have right arm_dma_limit in
below order.

1. 787b0d5 {ARM: 7908/1: mm: Fix the arm_dma_limit calculation}
2. 7c92732 {ARM: 7909/1: mm: Call setup_dma_zone() post early_paging_init()}

But with 2 alone the issue gets fixed since with ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT and
below pre-processor, the PHYS_OFFSET also gets an updated value. I never
realised that 1 becomes redundant after second patch while creating them. 

#define PHYS_OFFSET __pv_phys_offset

So indeed, 787b0d5{ARM: 7908/1: mm: Fix the arm_dma_limit calculation}
won't be needed anymore and can be reverted. Sorry it took some time
for me to reach to your conclusion.

Regards,
Santosh