From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Hancock Subject: Re: [PATCH] sata_nv: fix ADMA ATAPI issues with memory over 4GB Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:26:16 -0600 Message-ID: <47392768.3030509@shaw.ca> References: <4738DE21.8090702@shaw.ca> <47390B2F.7090105@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca ([24.71.223.10]:56434 "EHLO pd3mo1so.prod.shaw.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752078AbXKME1T (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:27:19 -0500 In-reply-to: <47390B2F.7090105@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel , ide , Jeff Garzik Tejun Heo wrote: > How about always initialize DMA mask to ATA_DMA_MASK regardless of ADMA > mode such that PRD and PAD buffers are always accessible by register > mode and just raising PCI dma mask and queue bounce limit if ADMA mode > is active? Could be done.. but, I don't want to constrain the ADMA APRD/CPB area in that way (there are some dual-socket Opteron boxes with this controller, forcing an allocation below 4GB for this could force a non-optimal node allocation I think..) To do this I'd have to raise the mask for the APRD allocation, drop it again, then raise it again in ADMA mode, which is kind of ugly. Also, I'd rather not allocate the legacy PRD at all if we're in ADMA mode. That way, if some bug causes us to try and do legacy DMA in ADMA mode, we'll crash from null pointer dereference instead of potentially transferring incorrect data (as we had in this case) and corrupting things. > >> + /* Set appropriate DMA mask. */ >> + pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, bounce_limit); >> + pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, bounce_limit); > > These can fail. Yes, it should likely do something with these return values. Though theoretically it shouldn't fail, since the DMA mask is either 32-bit, which shouldn't fail, or one that was successfully set before. Also I don't think the SCSI layer actually checks the slave_config return value.. sigh. > > Also, please separate out the result TF handling to a separate patch. I > know it's a small change but as both introduces important behavior > changes, I think it would be nice to have a bisection point inbetween. Could do. That change would have to come first though, as the change to not allocate the PRD except when necessary would cause some cases there to blow up when before they might have worked in some cases. > > Thanks. >