From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:55:17 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 21/22] arm64: replace ZONE_DMA with ZONE_DMA32
In-Reply-To: <0371cef8-d980-96da-9cb5-3609c39be18a@arm.com>
References: <20180110080932.14157-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20180110080932.14157-22-hch@lst.de>
 <0371cef8-d980-96da-9cb5-3609c39be18a@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20180110155517.GA18774@lst.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:58:14PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 10/01/18 08:09, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> arm64 uses ZONE_DMA for allocations below 32-bits.  These days we
>> name the zone for that ZONE_DMA32, which will allow to use the
>> dma-direct and generic swiotlb code as-is, so rename it.
>
> I do wonder if we could also "upgrade" GFP_DMA to GFP_DMA32 somehow when 
> !ZONE_DMA - there are almost certainly arm64 drivers out there using a 
> combination of GFP_DMA and streaming mappings which will no longer get the 
> guaranteed 32-bit addresses they expect after this. I'm not sure quite how 
> feasible that is, though :/

I can't find anything obvious in the tree. The alternative would be
to keep ZONE_DMA and set ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS.

> That said, I do agree that this is an appropriate change (the legacy of 
> GFP_DMA is obviously horrible), so, provided we get plenty of time to find 
> and fix the fallout when it lands:
>
> Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>

I was hoping to get this into 4.15.  What would be proper time to
fix the fallout?