From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> To: Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org> Cc: guohanjun@huawei.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, moritzf@google.com, will@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI/IORT: Do not blindly trust DMA masks from firmware Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:19:08 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210127111908.GA9766@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210122012419.95010-1-mdf@kernel.org> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:24:19PM -0800, Moritz Fischer wrote: > Address issue observed on real world system with suboptimal IORT table > where DMA masks of PCI devices would get set to 0 as result. > > iort_dma_setup() would query the root complex'/named component IORT > entry for a DMA mask, and use that over the one the device has been > configured with earlier. > > Ideally we want to use the minimum mask of what the IORT contains for > the root complex and what the device was configured with. > > Fixes: 5ac65e8c8941 ("ACPI/IORT: Support address size limit for root complexes") > Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org> > --- > > Changes from v1: > - Changed warning to FW_BUG > - Warn for both Named Component or Root Complex > - Replaced min_not_zero() with min() > > --- > drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c > index d4eac6d7e9fb..2494138a6905 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c > @@ -1107,6 +1107,11 @@ static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size) > > ncomp = (struct acpi_iort_named_component *)node->node_data; > > + if (!ncomp->memory_address_limit) { > + pr_warn(FW_BUG "Named component missing memory address limit\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > *size = ncomp->memory_address_limit >= 64 ? U64_MAX : > 1ULL<<ncomp->memory_address_limit; > > @@ -1126,6 +1131,11 @@ static int rc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size) > > rc = (struct acpi_iort_root_complex *)node->node_data; > > + if (!rc->memory_address_limit) { > + pr_warn(FW_BUG "Root complex missing memory address limit\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > *size = rc->memory_address_limit >= 64 ? U64_MAX : > 1ULL<<rc->memory_address_limit; > > @@ -1173,8 +1183,8 @@ void iort_dma_setup(struct device *dev, u64 *dma_addr, u64 *dma_size) > end = dmaaddr + size - 1; > mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(ilog2(end) + 1); > dev->bus_dma_limit = end; > - dev->coherent_dma_mask = mask; > - *dev->dma_mask = mask; > + dev->coherent_dma_mask = min(dev->coherent_dma_mask, mask); > + *dev->dma_mask = min(*dev->dma_mask, mask); > } > > *dma_addr = dmaaddr; > -- > 2.30.0 >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> To: Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org> Cc: guohanjun@huawei.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, moritzf@google.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, will@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI/IORT: Do not blindly trust DMA masks from firmware Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:19:08 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210127111908.GA9766@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210122012419.95010-1-mdf@kernel.org> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:24:19PM -0800, Moritz Fischer wrote: > Address issue observed on real world system with suboptimal IORT table > where DMA masks of PCI devices would get set to 0 as result. > > iort_dma_setup() would query the root complex'/named component IORT > entry for a DMA mask, and use that over the one the device has been > configured with earlier. > > Ideally we want to use the minimum mask of what the IORT contains for > the root complex and what the device was configured with. > > Fixes: 5ac65e8c8941 ("ACPI/IORT: Support address size limit for root complexes") > Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org> > --- > > Changes from v1: > - Changed warning to FW_BUG > - Warn for both Named Component or Root Complex > - Replaced min_not_zero() with min() > > --- > drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c > index d4eac6d7e9fb..2494138a6905 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c > @@ -1107,6 +1107,11 @@ static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size) > > ncomp = (struct acpi_iort_named_component *)node->node_data; > > + if (!ncomp->memory_address_limit) { > + pr_warn(FW_BUG "Named component missing memory address limit\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > *size = ncomp->memory_address_limit >= 64 ? U64_MAX : > 1ULL<<ncomp->memory_address_limit; > > @@ -1126,6 +1131,11 @@ static int rc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size) > > rc = (struct acpi_iort_root_complex *)node->node_data; > > + if (!rc->memory_address_limit) { > + pr_warn(FW_BUG "Root complex missing memory address limit\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > *size = rc->memory_address_limit >= 64 ? U64_MAX : > 1ULL<<rc->memory_address_limit; > > @@ -1173,8 +1183,8 @@ void iort_dma_setup(struct device *dev, u64 *dma_addr, u64 *dma_size) > end = dmaaddr + size - 1; > mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(ilog2(end) + 1); > dev->bus_dma_limit = end; > - dev->coherent_dma_mask = mask; > - *dev->dma_mask = mask; > + dev->coherent_dma_mask = min(dev->coherent_dma_mask, mask); > + *dev->dma_mask = min(*dev->dma_mask, mask); > } > > *dma_addr = dmaaddr; > -- > 2.30.0 > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-27 11:22 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-01-22 1:24 [PATCH v2] ACPI/IORT: Do not blindly trust DMA masks from firmware Moritz Fischer 2021-01-22 1:24 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-01-22 14:42 ` Robin Murphy 2021-01-22 14:42 ` Robin Murphy 2021-01-22 17:50 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-01-22 17:50 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-01-22 19:17 ` Robin Murphy 2021-01-22 19:17 ` Robin Murphy 2021-01-22 19:43 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-01-22 19:43 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-01-27 11:19 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message] 2021-01-27 11:19 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi 2021-01-27 13:09 ` Catalin Marinas 2021-01-27 13:09 ` Catalin Marinas 2021-01-28 17:11 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-01-28 17:11 ` Moritz Fischer
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=20210127111908.GA9766@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com \ --to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \ --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \ --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mdf@kernel.org \ --cc=moritzf@google.com \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.