From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAF5C432C0 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486FA215A5 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726496AbfK1OPh (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:15:37 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:36032 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726401AbfK1OPh (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:15:37 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4AD330E; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 06:15:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (e107155-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D07573F68E; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 06:15:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:15:21 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Robin Murphy Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Rob Herring , Liviu Dudau , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: juno: Fix DMA address translations by adding SOC bus node Message-ID: <20191128141521.GA3333@bogus> References: <20191126165355.6696-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:50:54AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On 2019-11-26 4:53 pm, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > Commit 951d48855d86 ("of: Make of_dma_get_range() work on bus nodes") > > reworked the logic such that of_dma_get_range() works correctly > > starting from a bus node containing "dma-ranges". > > > > Since on Juno we don't have a SoC level bus node and "dma-ranges" is > > present only in the root node, we get the following error: > > > > OF: translation of DMA address(0) to CPU address failed node(/sram@2e000000) > > OF: translation of DMA address(0) to CPU address failed node(/uart@7ff80000) > > ... > > OF: translation of DMA address(0) to CPU address failed node(/mhu@2b1f0000) > > OF: translation of DMA address(0) to CPU address failed node(/iommu@2b600000) > > OF: translation of DMA address(0) to CPU address failed node(/iommu@2b600000) > > OF: translation of DMA address(0) to CPU address failed node(/iommu@2b600000) > > > > Let's fix it by adding a SoC bus node and moving all the devices along > > with the "dma-ranges" inside it. > > > > Cc: Rob Herring > > Cc: Liviu Dudau > > Cc: Robin Murphy > > Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla > > --- > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-base.dtsi | 162 +++++++++--------- > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-clocks.dtsi | 2 + > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-cs-r1r2.dtsi | 2 + > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-motherboard.dtsi | 2 + > > 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-) > > > > Hi Rob, Robin, > > > > Let me know if this is correct fix for the issue I am seeing with linux-next > > on Juno. This patch is generated with -b for ease of review. With lots of > > indentation, actual delta is: > > > > 4 files changed, 1274 insertions(+), 1266 deletions(-) > > Other than a few nits - the GIC should probably be under the soc node as > it's an MMIO device, while the clocks shouldn't; the dtsi's could probably > avoid churn with a "&soc {...}" phandle - I think this is a reasonable thing > to do, as it's generally the preferred structure. > I agree and am still in confusion as what to put inside soc or not. > The cruder but far simpler alternative would be to just drop the dma-ranges > property - I'm not sure the effort to make all 64-bit platforms describe > their dma-ranges has really panned out, and it isn't actually necessary for > Juno (which is why it didn't seem like sufficient reason to do all this > restructuring at the time, and instead I took a very liberal interpretation > of the spec to sneak it into the root node). > I think I prefer that for v5.5 as a fix as this is much bigger churn. We can do that for v5.6 if required. Let me know if you disagree. I can simply revert your original patch adding dma-ranges for now and we can add it later with all the soc structure. -- Regards, Sudeep