On Fri, 2020-10-30 at 18:11 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:25:43PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > Ard Biesheuvel (1):
> >   arm64: mm: Set ZONE_DMA size based on early IORT scan
> > 
> > Nicolas Saenz Julienne (6):
> >   arm64: mm: Move reserve_crashkernel() into mem_init()
> >   arm64: mm: Move zone_dma_bits initialization into zone_sizes_init()
> >   of/address: Introduce of_dma_get_max_cpu_address()
> >   of: unittest: Add test for of_dma_get_max_cpu_address()
> >   arm64: mm: Set ZONE_DMA size based on devicetree's dma-ranges
> >   mm: Remove examples from enum zone_type comment
> 
> Thanks for putting this together. I had a minor comment but the patches
> look fine to me. We still need an ack from Rob on the DT patch and I can
> queue the series for 5.11.

I'm preparing a v6 unifying both functions as you suggested.

> Could you please also test the patch below on top of this series? It's
> the removal of the implied DMA offset in the max_zone_phys()
> calculation.

Yes, happily. Comments below.

> --------------------------8<-----------------------------
> From 3ae252d888be4984a612236124f5b099e804c745 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 18:07:34 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Ignore any DMA offsets in the max_zone_phys()
>  calculation
> 
> Currently, the kernel assumes that if RAM starts above 32-bit (or
> zone_bits), there is still a ZONE_DMA/DMA32 at the bottom of the RAM and
> such constrained devices have a hardwired DMA offset. In practice, we
> haven't noticed any such hardware so let's assume that we can expand
> ZONE_DMA32 to the available memory if no RAM below 4GB. Similarly,
> ZONE_DMA is expanded to the 4GB limit if no RAM addressable by
> zone_bits.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> index 095540667f0f..362160e16fb2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> @@ -175,14 +175,21 @@ static void __init reserve_elfcorehdr(void)
>  #endif /* CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP */
>  
>  /*
> - * Return the maximum physical address for a zone with a given address size
> - * limit. It currently assumes that for memory starting above 4G, 32-bit
> - * devices will use a DMA offset.
> + * Return the maximum physical address for a zone accessible by the given bits
> + * limit. If the DRAM starts above 32-bit, expand the zone to the maximum
> + * available memory, otherwise cap it at 32-bit.
>   */
>  static phys_addr_t __init max_zone_phys(unsigned int zone_bits)
>  {
> -	phys_addr_t offset = memblock_start_of_DRAM() & GENMASK_ULL(63, zone_bits);
> -	return min(offset + (1ULL << zone_bits), memblock_end_of_DRAM());
> +	phys_addr_t zone_mask = (1ULL << zone_bits) - 1;

Maybe use DMA_BIT_MASK(), instead of the manual calculation?

> +	phys_addr_t phys_start = memblock_start_of_DRAM();
> +
> +	if (!(phys_start & U32_MAX))

I'd suggest using 'bigger than' instead of masks. Just to cover ourselves
against memory starting at odd locations. Also it'll behaves properly when
phys_start is zero (this breaks things on RPi4).

> +		zone_mask = PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
> +	else if (!(phys_start & zone_mask))
> +		zone_mask = U32_MAX;
> +
> +	return min(zone_mask + 1, memblock_end_of_DRAM());

This + 1 isn't going to play well when zone_mask is PHYS_ADDR_MAX.

Regards,
Nicolas