[PATCH] arm64: Add pdev_archdata for dmamask

[Catalin Marinas]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:42:07AM +0000, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 1/27/2014 11:31 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:52:57AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> >> The dma_mask for a device structure is a pointer. This pointer
> >> needs to be set up before the dma mask can actually be set. Most
> >> frameworks in the kernel take care of setting this up properly but
> >> platform devices that don't follow a regular bus structure may not
> >> ever have this set. As a result, checks such as dma_capable will
> >> always return false on a raw platform device and dma_set_mask will
> >> always return -EIO. Fix this by adding a dma_mask in the
> >> platform_device archdata and setting it to be the dma_mask. Devices
> >> used in other frameworks can change this as needed.
> >
> > You shouldn't need to do this.  I went through a lot of the drivers we
> > currently have, fixing them up in various manners.  The basic rules
> > for this stuff are:
> >
> > - It is the responsibility of the code creating the device to set a
> >    reasonable default for the dma mask according to the bus and whether
> >    DMA is supportable.
> >
> > - It is the responsibility of the driver _always_ to make a call to
> >    dma_set_mask() and/or dma_set_coherent_mask() according to the
> >    driver's needs if the driver is going to be using DMA.
> >
> > As a work-around for the buggy situation we have in the kernel with DT,
> > various buggy workarounds have been incorporated into drivers which
> > involve writing directly to the DMA masks, and other such games.  None
> > of that is necessary when the dma_coerce_*() functions are used - but
> > these are a stop-gap until the DT code gets fixed.
> >
> > The real answer here is to make DT conform to the first point above
> > and not add yet another different hack to the kernel.
> >
> 
> powerpc ran into this exact problem before and fixed it using this 
> method (a77ce8167cc1d0370fcb1d79b367d62e050cb2b0
> "driver core: Add ability for arch code to setup pdev_archdata" and
>   314b02f503c2c219fde0fcf6f086fda415f8a847 "powerpc: implement 
> arch_setup_pdev_archdata") so there is at least some precedent for this 
> method.
> 
> Are there patches/discussion somewhere else on what a proper solution 
> would be in the DT?

I guess this comes under the system topology discussion we briefly
touched at the kernel summit. Dave Martin (cc'ed) is looking into this
now, so at some point we'll have some longer discussions on the list.

-- 
Catalin