From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 D9669C43381 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 07:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B239E20684 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 07:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726275AbfCHHSR (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:18:17 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:52103 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725948AbfCHHSR (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:18:17 -0500 Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id B1D8D68C4E; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 08:18:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 08:18:10 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Marek Vasut Cc: Robin Murphy , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Marek Vasut , Christoph Hellwig , Geert Uytterhoeven , Jens Axboe , Jens Axboe , Keith Busch , Sagi Grimberg , Wolfram Sang , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] ata: ahci: Respect bus DMA constraints Message-ID: <20190308071810.GA11959@lst.de> References: <20190307000440.8708-1-marek.vasut@gmail.com> <7c051bbd-7835-9cab-30b2-0acde1364781@arm.com> <356f3ee8-407f-f865-e5cc-333695d4f857@gmail.com> <79e44e90-b16a-5315-e02f-101a2ebbb6a0@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:14:06PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > Right, but whoever *interprets* the device masks after the driver has > > overridden them should be taking the (smaller) bus mask into account as > > well, so the question is where is *that* not being done correctly? > > Do you have a hint where I should look for that ? If this a 32-bit ARM platform it might the complete lack of support for bus_dma_mask in arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c.. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 08:18:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] ata: ahci: Respect bus DMA constraints In-Reply-To: References: <20190307000440.8708-1-marek.vasut@gmail.com> <7c051bbd-7835-9cab-30b2-0acde1364781@arm.com> <356f3ee8-407f-f865-e5cc-333695d4f857@gmail.com> <79e44e90-b16a-5315-e02f-101a2ebbb6a0@arm.com> Message-ID: <20190308071810.GA11959@lst.de> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019@12:14:06PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > Right, but whoever *interprets* the device masks after the driver has > > overridden them should be taking the (smaller) bus mask into account as > > well, so the question is where is *that* not being done correctly? > > Do you have a hint where I should look for that ? If this a 32-bit ARM platform it might the complete lack of support for bus_dma_mask in arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c..