From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=byMz=YS=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365FDCA9EA0
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 22:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AF2920663
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 22:30:49 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Y0xPYNWI"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9AF2920663
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470JjM2Vj4zDqtK
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 09:30:47 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized)
 smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org;
 envelope-from=robh+dt@kernel.org; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key;
 unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Y0xPYNWI"; 
 dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 470JgJ57sFzDqss
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 09:29:00 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-f175.google.com (mail-qt1-f175.google.com
 [209.85.160.175])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 866A0222CB
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 22:28:57 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
 s=default; t=1572042537;
 bh=3evtaW0DllhNjB+6uE12Xtr767SicH4mL/3jr13JPnw=;
 h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From;
 b=Y0xPYNWIhy+X9xuv5u4Wa/zCefNIPCanVXobNlhDKDX+Owz52aqUAH58jQ+mNPs63
 O3mMjAqP71Ir0UCSIrBSJIhnTx3HMFGLlfJAKFrZq2/utHjIKqYV0lRegpvqlNse6+
 htEoGVaqJTN39uF3gK96EmNCmnRhLEiw9Z3VeLDA=
Received: by mail-qt1-f175.google.com with SMTP id g50so5634809qtb.4
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXR2vnDguZy8MyEDrv0W4rs34gObkNVFlo+oaES2aqcFpfRjOhI
 I8I2OI3/ZY9SjN/2ZRep1DL6y6pgWmyBoO4O7Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwUeo+87jGdwN8O2BI8pdyipeup5umEsuiEp7ShvmiozlvhXNWOXf+HdZp099/MAKe+FyPRmNOe/EwJehO/q28=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:eed0:: with SMTP id h16mr5912628qvs.85.1572042536551; 
 Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7b549219-a2e1-08c7-331b-9c3e4fdb8a8f@xenosoft.de>
 <3aeae0d8-e9be-2585-cbbd-70263cb495f1@xenosoft.de>
 <20191015125105.GU25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <5611f3bc-68aa-78ec-182a-1cb414202314@xenosoft.de>
 <20191015131750.GV25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <87muds586t.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
 <31d58f086f964937b27209bc18b334d9c9791767.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <CAL_JsqJpFy-g3earNjZs7jANx4pyRd=CDvZN3emMdXL5YNkYHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191023143159.GB25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20191023143159.GB25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:28:45 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAL_JsqLZV1sXc053QMLcV-dV1BbGcRtX3eu1zbtNA_N3hzQE4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqLZV1sXc053QMLcV-dV1BbGcRtX3eu1zbtNA_N3hzQE4g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Onboard SD card doesn't work anymore after the 'mmc-v5.4-2'
 updates
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, mad skateman <madskateman@gmail.com>,
 linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
 "R.T.Dickinson" <rtd2@xtra.co.nz>, Christian Zigotzky <chzigotzky@xenosoft.de>,
 "contact@a-eon.com" <contact@a-eon.com>,
 linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
 Christian Zigotzky <info@xenosoft.de>
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:32 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 08:52:33AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > I think this should have been done the other way around and default to
> > > coherent since most traditional OF platforms are coherent, and you
> > > can't just require those DTs to change.
> >
> > You can blame me. This was really only intended for cases where
> > coherency is configurable on a per peripheral basis and can't be
> > determined in other ways.
> >
> > The simple solution here is simply to use the compatible string for
> > the device to determine coherent or not.
>
> It really isn't that simple.

This doesn't work?:

        if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC) || of_dma_is_coherent(dev->of_node))
                value |= ESDHC_DMA_SNOOP;
        else
                value &= ~ESDHC_DMA_SNOOP;

While I said use the compatibles, using the kconfig symbol is easier
than sorting out which compatibles are PPC SoCs. Though if that's
already done elsewhere in the driver, you could set a flag and use
that here. I'd be surprised if this was the only difference between
ARM and PPC SoCs for this block.

> There are two aspects to coherency, both of which must match:
>
> 1) The configuration of the device
> 2) The configuration of the kernel's DMA API
>
> (1) is controlled by the driver, which can make the decision any way
> it pleases.
>
> (2) on ARM64 is controlled depending on whether or not "dma-coherent"
> is specified in the device tree, since ARM64 can have a mixture of
> DMA coherent and non-coherent devices.
>
> A mismatch between (1) and (2) results in data corruption, potentially
> eating your filesystem.  So, it's very important that the two match.
>
> These didn't match for the LX2160A, but, due to the way CMA was working,
> we sort of got away with it, but it was very dangerous as far as data
> safety went.
>
> Then, a change to CMA happened which moved where it was located, which
> caused a regression.  Reverting the CMA changes didn't seem to be an
> option, so another solution had to be found.
>
> I started a discussion on how best to solve this:
>
> https://archive.armlinux.org.uk/lurker/thread/20190919.041320.1e53541f.en.html
>
> and the solution that the discussion came out with was the one that has
> been merged - which we now know caused a regression on PPC.
>
> Using compatible strings doesn't solve the issue: there is no way to
> tell the DMA API from the driver that the device is coherent.  The
> only way to do that is via the "dma-coherent" property in DT on ARM64.
>
> To say that this is a mess is an under-statement, but we seem to have
> ended up here because of a series of piece-meal changes that don't seem
> to have been thought through enough.
>
> So, what's the right way to solve this, and ensure that the DMA API and
> device match as far as their coherency expectations go?  Revert all the
> changes for sdhci-of-esdhc and CMA back to 5.0 or 5.1 state?

The other option is similar to earlier in the thread and just add to
of_dma_is_coherent():

/* Powerpc is normally cache coherent DMA */
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE))
    return true;

We could do the all the weak arch hooks, but that seems like overkill
to me at this point.

Rob