[PATCH V3] of: Set the DMA mask to 64 bits when dma_addr_t is 64-bits

Ming Lei tom.leiming at gmail.com
Mon Jul 8 06:03:57 EDT 2013

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 10:21:05AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> But please see below words in Documentation/DMA-API.txt:
>>            Further, the physical address of the memory must be within the
>>            dma_mask of the device (the dma_mask represents a bit mask of the
>>            addressable region for the device.  I.e., if the physical address of
>>            the memory anded with the dma_mask is still equal to the physical
>>            address, then the device can perform DMA to the memory).
>> You may argue that the description is about dev->dma_mask, but the
>> usage should be same.
>> In fact, most of devices in ARM SoC(even with LPAE enabled) doesn't
>> support 64bit DMA, so I don't see the point that the default mask is set
>> as 64bit.
> There's another couple of issues there:
> (a) Linux assumes that physical memory starts at location zero.  There
>     are various places in the kernel that assume that this holds true:
>         max_dma_pfn = (dma_mask >> PAGE_SHIFT) + 1
>     One notable place is the block layer.  I've suggested to Santosh a
>     way to fix this but I need to help him a little more with it.
> (b) Device DMA addresses are a *separate* address space to the physical
>     address space.  Device DMA addresses are the addresses which need to
>     be programmed into the device to perform DMA to the identified
>     location.
> What (b) means is that if you are ending up with a 64-bit address to be
> programmed into a 32-bit only register, there is something very very
> wrong.  What this also means is that a 32-bit DMA mask should suffice,
> because if the DMA address results in a 32-bit address _for the DMA
> device_ then we are within its capabilities.
> In any case, the work around is not to set the DMA mask to be 64-bit.

So how about working around the problem by setting arm_dma_limit as
(phys_addr_t)0xffffffff if CONFIG_ZONE_DMA is unset? Or other better

Otherwise enabling LPAE may cause system boot failure because
mmc card may not work when arm_dma_limit becomes (u64)-1.

> Think about it.  What if you have 8GB of physical memory in a LPAE
> system, but your DMA controllers can only be programmed with a 32-bit
> address?
> Lastly, think about what I said last night about most of the ARM drivers
> being rather buggy in that they do not call either dma_set_mask() or
> dma_set_coherent_mask().
> So, I think we're well past the point where we need to stop assuming that
> DMA masks somehow relate to physical addresses, and that they can be used
> to indicate a range of physical addresses starting at zero and extending
> up to and including the mask value.  To call such a thing a "mask" is
> absolutely absurd.

Ming Lei

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list