From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 2/2] arm: kernel: fix pci_mmap_page_range() offset calculation
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:24:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141016102445.GA28187@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141015222932.GL27405@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Hi Russell,
thanks for having a look.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:29:32PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 01:03:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > ARM relies on the standard implementation of pci_resource_to_user()
> > which actually is an identity map and exports to user space
> > PCI memory resources as they are stored in PCI devices resources (ie BARs)
> > which represent CPU physical addresses (fixed-up using BUS to CPU
> > address conversions) not PCI bus addresses.
>
> This paragraph seems wrong.
>
> It first says that PCI memory resources contain the same values that the
> PCI device has in its BAR. It then goes on to say that they are CPU
> physical addresses. That is not true.
>
> For example, DC21285 systems always have done this as: the PCI bars
> contain the _bus_ addresses, which tend to be in the range 0 to
> 0x7fffffff. These correspond with a CPU physical address of
> 0x80000000 to 0xffffffff. The PCI bus resources for IOMEM resources
> contains the CPU physical address of the mapping.
It is a commit log wording problem, I exactly meant what you said, I
will reword it (or remove "ie BARs" from it, since it is misleading).
I think that the word "BAR" is a bit misused in helpers function like:
pci_resource_{start/end/len}
too but as long as we all know what that means (and I write proper
commit logs :)) it is all fine.
> > On platforms where the mapping between CPU and BUS address is not a 1:1
> > mapping this is erroneous, in that an additional shift is applied to
> > an already fixed-up offset passed from userspace.
>
> Yes, I think this is a correct patch inspite of the description. :)
Great, I will reword it and wait for comments on patch 1 that changes
pci_mmap_fits() (it does not affect ARM, but would like to get both changes
in coherently - ie if I am asked to change patch 1 I will probably have
to change this patch too).
Thanks,
Lorenzo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-16 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1413374624-30066-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
2014-10-15 12:03 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] arm: kernel: fix pci_mmap_page_range() offset calculation Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-10-15 22:29 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-10-16 10:24 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [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=20141016102445.GA28187@red-moon \
--to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).