use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers

use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers

[Christoph Hellwig]

Hi all,

Linux 5.10-rc1 switched from having a single dma offset in struct device
to a set of DMA ranges, and introduced a new helper to set them,
dma_direct_set_offset.

This in fact surfaced that a bunch of drivers that violate our layering
and set the offset from drivers, which meant we had to reluctantly
export the symbol to set up the DMA range.

The drivers are:

drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c

  This just use dma_direct_set_offset as a fallback.  Is there any good
  reason to not just kill off the fallback?

drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun4i-csi/sun4i_csi.c

  Same as above.

drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c

  This driver unconditionally sets the offset.  Why can't we do this
  in the device tree?

drivers/staging/media/sunxi/cedrus/cedrus_hw.c

  Same as above.


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2280 bytes --]

Hi Christoph,

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:55:38AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Linux 5.10-rc1 switched from having a single dma offset in struct device
> to a set of DMA ranges, and introduced a new helper to set them,
> dma_direct_set_offset.
> 
> This in fact surfaced that a bunch of drivers that violate our layering
> and set the offset from drivers, which meant we had to reluctantly
> export the symbol to set up the DMA range.
> 
> The drivers are:
> 
> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
> 
>   This just use dma_direct_set_offset as a fallback.  Is there any good
>   reason to not just kill off the fallback?
> 
> drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun4i-csi/sun4i_csi.c
> 
>   Same as above.

So, the history of this is:

  - We initially introduced the support for those two controllers
    assuming that there was a direct mapping between the physical and
    DMA addresses. It turns out it didn't and the DMA accesses were
    going through a secondary, dedicated, bus that didn't have the same
    mapping of the RAM than the CPU.

    4690803b09c6 ("drm/sun4i: backend: Offset layer buffer address by DRAM starting address")

  - This dedicated bus is undocumented and barely used in the vendor
    kernel so this was overlooked, and it's fairly hard to get infos on
    it for all the SoCs we support. We added the DT support for it
    though on some SoCs we had enough infos to do so:

    c43a4469402f ("dt-bindings: interconnect: Add a dma interconnect name")
    22f88e311399 ("ARM: dts: sun5i: Add the MBUS controller")

    This explains the check on the interconnect property

  - However, due to the stable DT rule, we still need to operate without
    regressions on older DTs that wouldn't have that property (and for
    SoCs we haven't figured out). Hence the fallback.

> drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
> 
>   This driver unconditionally sets the offset.  Why can't we do this
>   in the device tree?
> 
> drivers/staging/media/sunxi/cedrus/cedrus_hw.c
> 
>   Same as above.
>

We should make those two match the previous ones, but we'll have the
same issue here eventually. Most likely they were never ran on an SoC
for which we have the MBUS figured out.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers

[Robin Murphy]

On 2020-11-04 08:14, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:55:38AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Linux 5.10-rc1 switched from having a single dma offset in struct device
>> to a set of DMA ranges, and introduced a new helper to set them,
>> dma_direct_set_offset.
>>
>> This in fact surfaced that a bunch of drivers that violate our layering
>> and set the offset from drivers, which meant we had to reluctantly
>> export the symbol to set up the DMA range.
>>
>> The drivers are:
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
>>
>>    This just use dma_direct_set_offset as a fallback.  Is there any good
>>    reason to not just kill off the fallback?
>>
>> drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun4i-csi/sun4i_csi.c
>>
>>    Same as above.
> 
> So, the history of this is:
> 
>    - We initially introduced the support for those two controllers
>      assuming that there was a direct mapping between the physical and
>      DMA addresses. It turns out it didn't and the DMA accesses were
>      going through a secondary, dedicated, bus that didn't have the same
>      mapping of the RAM than the CPU.
> 
>      4690803b09c6 ("drm/sun4i: backend: Offset layer buffer address by DRAM starting address")
> 
>    - This dedicated bus is undocumented and barely used in the vendor
>      kernel so this was overlooked, and it's fairly hard to get infos on
>      it for all the SoCs we support. We added the DT support for it
>      though on some SoCs we had enough infos to do so:
> 
>      c43a4469402f ("dt-bindings: interconnect: Add a dma interconnect name")
>      22f88e311399 ("ARM: dts: sun5i: Add the MBUS controller")
> 
>      This explains the check on the interconnect property
> 
>    - However, due to the stable DT rule, we still need to operate without
>      regressions on older DTs that wouldn't have that property (and for
>      SoCs we haven't figured out). Hence the fallback.

How about having something in the platform code that keys off the 
top-level SoC compatible and uses a bus notifier to create offsets for 
the relevant devices if an MBUS description is missing? At least that 
way the workaround could be confined to a single dedicated place and 
look somewhat similar to other special cases like sta2x11, rather than 
being duplicated all over the place.

Robin.

>> drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
>>
>>    This driver unconditionally sets the offset.  Why can't we do this
>>    in the device tree?
>>
>> drivers/staging/media/sunxi/cedrus/cedrus_hw.c
>>
>>    Same as above.
>>
> 
> We should make those two match the previous ones, but we'll have the
> same issue here eventually. Most likely they were never ran on an SoC
> for which we have the MBUS figured out.
> 
> Maxime
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:15:49AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> How about having something in the platform code that keys off the top-level 
> SoC compatible and uses a bus notifier to create offsets for the relevant 
> devices if an MBUS description is missing? At least that way the workaround 
> could be confined to a single dedicated place and look somewhat similar to 
> other special cases like sta2x11, rather than being duplicated all over the 
> place.

Yes, that would be the right way to handle the issue.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: use of dma_direct_set_offset in (allwinner) drivers

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2623 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:15:49AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-11-04 08:14, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Christoph,
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:55:38AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Linux 5.10-rc1 switched from having a single dma offset in struct device
> > > to a set of DMA ranges, and introduced a new helper to set them,
> > > dma_direct_set_offset.
> > > 
> > > This in fact surfaced that a bunch of drivers that violate our layering
> > > and set the offset from drivers, which meant we had to reluctantly
> > > export the symbol to set up the DMA range.
> > > 
> > > The drivers are:
> > > 
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
> > > 
> > >    This just use dma_direct_set_offset as a fallback.  Is there any good
> > >    reason to not just kill off the fallback?
> > > 
> > > drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun4i-csi/sun4i_csi.c
> > > 
> > >    Same as above.
> > 
> > So, the history of this is:
> > 
> >    - We initially introduced the support for those two controllers
> >      assuming that there was a direct mapping between the physical and
> >      DMA addresses. It turns out it didn't and the DMA accesses were
> >      going through a secondary, dedicated, bus that didn't have the same
> >      mapping of the RAM than the CPU.
> > 
> >      4690803b09c6 ("drm/sun4i: backend: Offset layer buffer address by DRAM starting address")
> > 
> >    - This dedicated bus is undocumented and barely used in the vendor
> >      kernel so this was overlooked, and it's fairly hard to get infos on
> >      it for all the SoCs we support. We added the DT support for it
> >      though on some SoCs we had enough infos to do so:
> > 
> >      c43a4469402f ("dt-bindings: interconnect: Add a dma interconnect name")
> >      22f88e311399 ("ARM: dts: sun5i: Add the MBUS controller")
> > 
> >      This explains the check on the interconnect property
> > 
> >    - However, due to the stable DT rule, we still need to operate without
> >      regressions on older DTs that wouldn't have that property (and for
> >      SoCs we haven't figured out). Hence the fallback.
> 
> How about having something in the platform code that keys off the top-level
> SoC compatible and uses a bus notifier to create offsets for the relevant
> devices if an MBUS description is missing? At least that way the workaround
> could be confined to a single dedicated place and look somewhat similar to
> other special cases like sta2x11, rather than being duplicated all over the
> place.

I'll give it a try, thanks for the suggestion :)

Maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel