Re: [PATCH 31/33] dma-direct: reject too small dma masks

Robin Murphy
2018-01-10T17:00:30Z

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.