From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934121AbdDGRJ7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:09:59 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:41150 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932576AbdDGRJw (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:09:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <58E72123.4040607@gmail.com> References: <1491459529-31391-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> <58E68ADC.6040603@gmail.com> <58E72123.4040607@gmail.com> From: Rob Herring Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:09:25 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: change fixup of dma-ranges size to error To: Frank Rowand , Robin Murphy , Sricharan Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org + Robin, Sricharan On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 04/06/17 15:41, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 04/06/17 07:03, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:18 AM, wrote: >>>>> From: Frank Rowand >>>>> >>>>> of_dma_get_range() has workaround code to fixup a device tree that >>>>> incorrectly specified a mask instead of a size for property >>>>> dma-ranges. That device tree was fixed a year ago in v4.6, so >>>>> the workaround is no longer needed. Leave a data validation >>>>> check in place, but no longer do the fixup. Move the check >>>>> one level deeper in the call stack so that other possible users >>>>> of dma-ranges will also be protected. >>>>> >>>>> The fix to the device tree was in >>>>> commit c91cb9123cdd ("dtb: amd: Fix DMA ranges in device tree"). >>>> >>>> NACK. >>>> This was by design. You can't represent a size of 2^64 or 2^32. >>> >>> I agree that being unable to represent a size of 2^32 in a u32 and >>> a size of 2^64 in a u64 is the underlying issue. >>> >>> But the code to convert a mask to a size is _not_ design, it is a >>> hack that temporarily worked around a device tree that did not follow >>> the dma-ranges binding in the ePAPR. >> >> Since when is (2^64 - 1) not a size. It's a perfectly valid size in > > I did not say (2^64 -1) is not a size. > > I said that the existing code has a hack that converts what is perceived > to be a mask into a size. The existing code is: > > @@ 110,21 @@ void of_dma_configure(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np) > size = dev->coherent_dma_mask + 1; > } else { > offset = PFN_DOWN(paddr - dma_addr); > > /* > * Add a work around to treat the size as mask + 1 in case > * it is defined in DT as a mask. > */ > if (size & 1) { > dev_warn(dev, "Invalid size 0x%llx for dma-range\n", > size); > size = size + 1; > } > > if (!size) { > dev_err(dev, "Adjusted size 0x%llx invalid\n", size); > return; > } > dev_dbg(dev, "dma_pfn_offset(%#08lx)\n", offset); > } > > Note the comment that says "in case it is defined in DT as a mask." > > And as you stated in a review comment is 2015: "Also, we need a WARN > here so DTs get fixed." Indeed. I agree that "let me put a mask in the DT so Linux (at some version) works" is wrong. I still think (2^32 - 1) and (2^64 - 1) should be allowed to avoid growing #size-cells and because #size-cells=3 doesn't work. >> DT. And there's probably not a system in the world that needs access >> to that last byte. Is it completely accurate description if we >> subtract off 1? No, but it is still a valid range (so would be >> subtracting 12345). >> >>> That device tree was corrected a year ago to provide a size instead of >>> a mask. >> >> You are letting Linux implementation details influence your DT >> thinking. DT is much more flexible in that it supports a base address >> and size (and multiple of them) while Linux can only deal with a >> single address mask. If Linux dealt with base + size, then we wouldn't > > No. of_dma_get_range() returns two addresses and a size from the > dma-ranges property, just as it is defined in the spec. > > of_dma_configure() then interprets an odd size as meaning that the > device tree incorrectly contains a mask, and then converts that mask > to a size by adding one to it. Linux is _still_ using address and > size at this point. It does _not_ convert this size into a mask, > but instead passes size on into arch_setup_dma_ops(). It doesn't really matter where in the implementation, but at some point we end up with only a mask in Linux was my point. > The proposed patch is to quit accepting a mask as valid data in > dma-ranges. > > >> be having this conversation. As long as Linux only deals with masks, >> we're going to have to have some sort of work-around to deal with >> them. >> >>>> Well, technically you can for the latter, but then you have to grow >>>> #size-cells to 2 for an otherwise all 32-bit system which seems kind >>>> of pointless and wasteful. You could further restrict this to only >>>> allow ~0 and not just any case with bit 0 set. >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure AMD is not the only system. There were 32-bit systems too. >>> >>> I examined all instances of property dma-ranges in in tree dts files in >>> Linux 4.11-rc1. There are none that incorrectly specify mask instead of >>> size. >> >> Okay, but there are ones for ranges at least. See ecx-2000.dts. > > The patch does not impact the ranges property. It only impacts the > dma-ranges property. Yes, I know. I'm only pointing out we have other cases of size=~0 to avoid growing #size-cells. >>> #size-cells only changes to 2 for the dma-ranges property and the ranges >>> property when size is 2^32, so that is a very small amount of space. >>> >>> The patch does not allow for a size of 2^64. If a system requires a >>> size of 2^64 then the type of size needs to increase to be larger >>> than a u64. If you would like for the code to be defensive and >>> detect a device tree providing a size of 2^64 then I can add a >>> check to of_dma_get_range() to return -EINVAL if #size-cells > 2. >>> When that error triggers, the type of size can be changed. >> >> #size-cells > 2 is completely broken for anything but PCI. I doubt it > > Yes, that is what I said. The current code does not support #size-cells > 2 > for dma-ranges. It's not just dma-ranges. It's everywhere with reg and ranges and any code that parses those too. If someone needs to truly specify sizes of 2^64 in DT (for reg, ranges, or dma-ranges), they are SOL. > #size-cells > 2 for dma-ranges will lead to a problem in > of_dma_get_range(), which stuffs the value of the size into a u64. > Clearly, a 3 cell size will not fit into a u64. > > >> is easily fixed without some special casing (i.e. a different hack) >> until we have 128-bit support. I hope to retire before we need to >> support that. >> >> Rob >> > > Can we get back to the basic premise of the proposed patch? > > The current code in of_dma_configure() contains a hack that allows the > dma-ranges property to specify a mask instead of a size. The binding > in the specification allows a size and does not allow a mask. > > The hack was added to account for one or more dts files that did not > follow the specification. In the mail list discussion of the hack > you said "Also, we need a WARN here so DTs get fixed." > > The hack was first present in Linux 4.1. The only in-tree dts that > incorrectly contained a mask instead of a size in dma-ranges was > arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd/amd-seattle-soc.dtsi > > That .dtsi was fixed by > commit c91cb9123cdd ("dtb: amd: Fix DMA ranges in device tree") > The fix was present in Linux 4.6, May 15, 2016. > > I would like to remove the hack. I think that enough time has > elapsed to allow this change. If we have no cases of what I'm concerned about, then removing it is fine. Is this a dependency for iommu series? Doesn't look like it to me. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: change fixup of dma-ranges size to error Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:09:25 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1491459529-31391-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> <58E68ADC.6040603@gmail.com> <58E72123.4040607@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <58E72123.4040607-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Frank Rowand , Robin Murphy , Sricharan Cc: "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org + Robin, Sricharan On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 04/06/17 15:41, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 04/06/17 07:03, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:18 AM, wrote: >>>>> From: Frank Rowand >>>>> >>>>> of_dma_get_range() has workaround code to fixup a device tree that >>>>> incorrectly specified a mask instead of a size for property >>>>> dma-ranges. That device tree was fixed a year ago in v4.6, so >>>>> the workaround is no longer needed. Leave a data validation >>>>> check in place, but no longer do the fixup. Move the check >>>>> one level deeper in the call stack so that other possible users >>>>> of dma-ranges will also be protected. >>>>> >>>>> The fix to the device tree was in >>>>> commit c91cb9123cdd ("dtb: amd: Fix DMA ranges in device tree"). >>>> >>>> NACK. >>>> This was by design. You can't represent a size of 2^64 or 2^32. >>> >>> I agree that being unable to represent a size of 2^32 in a u32 and >>> a size of 2^64 in a u64 is the underlying issue. >>> >>> But the code to convert a mask to a size is _not_ design, it is a >>> hack that temporarily worked around a device tree that did not follow >>> the dma-ranges binding in the ePAPR. >> >> Since when is (2^64 - 1) not a size. It's a perfectly valid size in > > I did not say (2^64 -1) is not a size. > > I said that the existing code has a hack that converts what is perceived > to be a mask into a size. The existing code is: > > @@ 110,21 @@ void of_dma_configure(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np) > size = dev->coherent_dma_mask + 1; > } else { > offset = PFN_DOWN(paddr - dma_addr); > > /* > * Add a work around to treat the size as mask + 1 in case > * it is defined in DT as a mask. > */ > if (size & 1) { > dev_warn(dev, "Invalid size 0x%llx for dma-range\n", > size); > size = size + 1; > } > > if (!size) { > dev_err(dev, "Adjusted size 0x%llx invalid\n", size); > return; > } > dev_dbg(dev, "dma_pfn_offset(%#08lx)\n", offset); > } > > Note the comment that says "in case it is defined in DT as a mask." > > And as you stated in a review comment is 2015: "Also, we need a WARN > here so DTs get fixed." Indeed. I agree that "let me put a mask in the DT so Linux (at some version) works" is wrong. I still think (2^32 - 1) and (2^64 - 1) should be allowed to avoid growing #size-cells and because #size-cells=3 doesn't work. >> DT. And there's probably not a system in the world that needs access >> to that last byte. Is it completely accurate description if we >> subtract off 1? No, but it is still a valid range (so would be >> subtracting 12345). >> >>> That device tree was corrected a year ago to provide a size instead of >>> a mask. >> >> You are letting Linux implementation details influence your DT >> thinking. DT is much more flexible in that it supports a base address >> and size (and multiple of them) while Linux can only deal with a >> single address mask. If Linux dealt with base + size, then we wouldn't > > No. of_dma_get_range() returns two addresses and a size from the > dma-ranges property, just as it is defined in the spec. > > of_dma_configure() then interprets an odd size as meaning that the > device tree incorrectly contains a mask, and then converts that mask > to a size by adding one to it. Linux is _still_ using address and > size at this point. It does _not_ convert this size into a mask, > but instead passes size on into arch_setup_dma_ops(). It doesn't really matter where in the implementation, but at some point we end up with only a mask in Linux was my point. > The proposed patch is to quit accepting a mask as valid data in > dma-ranges. > > >> be having this conversation. As long as Linux only deals with masks, >> we're going to have to have some sort of work-around to deal with >> them. >> >>>> Well, technically you can for the latter, but then you have to grow >>>> #size-cells to 2 for an otherwise all 32-bit system which seems kind >>>> of pointless and wasteful. You could further restrict this to only >>>> allow ~0 and not just any case with bit 0 set. >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure AMD is not the only system. There were 32-bit systems too. >>> >>> I examined all instances of property dma-ranges in in tree dts files in >>> Linux 4.11-rc1. There are none that incorrectly specify mask instead of >>> size. >> >> Okay, but there are ones for ranges at least. See ecx-2000.dts. > > The patch does not impact the ranges property. It only impacts the > dma-ranges property. Yes, I know. I'm only pointing out we have other cases of size=~0 to avoid growing #size-cells. >>> #size-cells only changes to 2 for the dma-ranges property and the ranges >>> property when size is 2^32, so that is a very small amount of space. >>> >>> The patch does not allow for a size of 2^64. If a system requires a >>> size of 2^64 then the type of size needs to increase to be larger >>> than a u64. If you would like for the code to be defensive and >>> detect a device tree providing a size of 2^64 then I can add a >>> check to of_dma_get_range() to return -EINVAL if #size-cells > 2. >>> When that error triggers, the type of size can be changed. >> >> #size-cells > 2 is completely broken for anything but PCI. I doubt it > > Yes, that is what I said. The current code does not support #size-cells > 2 > for dma-ranges. It's not just dma-ranges. It's everywhere with reg and ranges and any code that parses those too. If someone needs to truly specify sizes of 2^64 in DT (for reg, ranges, or dma-ranges), they are SOL. > #size-cells > 2 for dma-ranges will lead to a problem in > of_dma_get_range(), which stuffs the value of the size into a u64. > Clearly, a 3 cell size will not fit into a u64. > > >> is easily fixed without some special casing (i.e. a different hack) >> until we have 128-bit support. I hope to retire before we need to >> support that. >> >> Rob >> > > Can we get back to the basic premise of the proposed patch? > > The current code in of_dma_configure() contains a hack that allows the > dma-ranges property to specify a mask instead of a size. The binding > in the specification allows a size and does not allow a mask. > > The hack was added to account for one or more dts files that did not > follow the specification. In the mail list discussion of the hack > you said "Also, we need a WARN here so DTs get fixed." > > The hack was first present in Linux 4.1. The only in-tree dts that > incorrectly contained a mask instead of a size in dma-ranges was > arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd/amd-seattle-soc.dtsi > > That .dtsi was fixed by > commit c91cb9123cdd ("dtb: amd: Fix DMA ranges in device tree") > The fix was present in Linux 4.6, May 15, 2016. > > I would like to remove the hack. I think that enough time has > elapsed to allow this change. If we have no cases of what I'm concerned about, then removing it is fine. Is this a dependency for iommu series? Doesn't look like it to me. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html