From: Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
<herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, <arnd@arndb.de>,
<linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>, <will.deacon@arm.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <al.stone@linaro.org>,
<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<leo.duran@amd.com>, <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
<msalter@redhat.com>, <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
<davem@davemloft.net>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [V3 PATCH 1/5] ACPI / scan: Parse _CCA and setup device coherency
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 10:06:01 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <555216D9.30506@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1664523.WMm4AqWTY5@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 5/11/2015 8:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, May 11, 2015 05:16:27 PM Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:53:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 07, 2015 07:37:12 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>>> index ab2cbb5..7822149 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -54,6 +54,12 @@ config ACPI_GENERIC_GSI
>>>> config ACPI_SYSTEM_POWER_STATES_SUPPORT
>>>> bool
>>>>
>>>> +config ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED
>>>> + bool
>>>> +
>>>> +config ARM64_SUPPORT_ACPI_CCA_ZERO
>>>
>>> Hmm. I guess the Arnd's idea what to simply use CONFIG_ARM64 directly instead
>>> of adding this new option.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>>> +static inline bool acpi_dma_is_supported(struct acpi_device *adev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + /**
>>>> + * Currently, we mainly support _CCA=1 (i.e. is_coherent=1)
>>>> + * This should be equivalent to specifyig dma-coherent for
>>>> + * a device in OF.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * For the case when _CCA=0 (i.e. is_coherent=0 && cca_seen=1),
>>>> + * we would rely on arch-specific cache maintenance for
>>>> + * non-coherence DMA operations if architecture specifies
>>>> + * _XXX_SUPPORT_CCA_ZERO. Otherwise, we do not support
>>>> + * DMA on this device and fallback to arch-specific default
>>>> + * handling.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * For the case when _CCA is missing (i.e. cca_seen=0) but
>>>> + * platform specifies ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED, we do not support DMA,
>>>> + * and fallback to arch-specific default handling.
>>>> + */
>>>> + return adev && (adev->flags.is_coherent ||
>>>> + (adev->flags.cca_seen &&
>>>> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_SUPPORT_ACPI_CCA_ZERO)));
>>>
>>> So what exactly would be wrong with using IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) here?
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow why we need to check for ARM64 here at all. Can we
>> not just have something like:
>>
>> return adev && (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED) ||
>> adev->flags.cca_seen)
>
> If _CCA returns 0 on non-ARM64, DMA is not supported for this device, so
> in that case the function should return 'false' while the above check will
> make it return 'true'.
>
The main idea is basically to allow architecture to decide if it wants
to specify if it wants to support _CCA=0. Currently, there are two
approaches.
1. Do not support and disable DMA
2. Support and default to what architecture would normally do for
non-coherent DMA.
Since, ARM64 being the only platform, which supports ACPI and would
support _CCA=0. I can just put CONFIG_ARM64 then as Arnd and Rafael
mentioned.
Thanks,
Suravee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-12 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-08 0:37 [V3 PATCH 0/5] ACPI: Introduce support for _CCA object Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-08 0:37 ` [V3 PATCH 1/5] ACPI / scan: Parse _CCA and setup device coherency Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-08 20:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-11 16:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-05-12 1:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-12 15:06 ` Suravee Suthikulanit [this message]
2015-05-08 0:37 ` [V3 PATCH 2/5] arm64 : Introduce support for ACPI _CCA object Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-08 20:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-11 17:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-05-08 0:37 ` [V3 PATCH 3/5] device property: Introduces device_dma_is_coherent() Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-08 4:12 ` santosh.shilimkar
2015-05-08 20:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-08 20:27 ` santosh shilimkar
2015-05-08 20:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-08 20:36 ` santosh shilimkar
2015-05-08 0:37 ` [V3 PATCH 4/5] crypto: ccp - Unify coherency checking logic with device_dma_is_coherent() Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-08 0:37 ` [V3 PATCH 5/5] amd-xgbe: " Suravee Suthikulpanit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=555216D9.30506@amd.com \
--to=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=al.stone@linaro.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=leo.duran@amd.com \
--cc=linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=msalter@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).