From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: robin.murphy@arm.com (Robin Murphy)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:00:30 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 31/33] dma-direct: reject too small dma masks
In-Reply-To: <20180110153226.GE17790@lst.de>
References: <20180110080027.13879-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20180110080027.13879-32-hch@lst.de>
 <0bcca030-a8da-c34a-a905-707986689f33@arm.com>
 <20180110153226.GE17790@lst.de>
Message-ID: <619b174d-f38d-8d9e-dfd2-cc3a64ace446@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 10/01/18 15:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:49:34AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
>>> +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS))
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +#else
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Because 32-bit DMA masks are so common we expect every architecture
>>> +	 * to be able to satisfy them - either by not supporting more physical
>>> +	 * memory, or by providing a ZONE_DMA32.  If neither is the case, the
>>> +	 * architecture needs to use an IOMMU instead of the direct mapping.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(32))
>>> +		return 0;
>>
>> Do you think it's worth the effort to be a little more accommodating here?
>> i.e.:
>>
>> 		return dma_max_pfn(dev) >= max_pfn;
>>
>> We seem to have a fair few 28-31 bit masks for older hardware which
>> probably associates with host systems packing equivalently small amounts of
>> RAM.
> 
> And those devices don't have a ZONE_DMA?  I think we could do something
> like that, but I'd rather have it as a separate commit with a good
> explanation.  Maybe you can just send on on top of the series?

Good point - other than the IXP4xx platform and possibly the Broadcom 
network drivers, it's probably only x86-relevant stuff where the concern 
is moot. Let's just keep the simple assumption then, until actually 
proven otherwise.

Robin.