From: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@gmx.net>,
Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@suse.com>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, hch@lst.de,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
Cc: f.fainelli@gmail.com, robin.murphy@arm.com, phil@raspberrypi.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, will@kernel.org,
m.szyprowski@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Raspberry Pi 4 DMA addressing support
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:39:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a5073e16-c017-216c-72b4-0e861102c4e8@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3163f80b-72e5-5da8-0909-a8950d3669f7@gmx.net>
On 13/09/2019 12:08, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> Am 13.09.19 um 11:25 schrieb Matthias Brugger:
>>
>> On 13/09/2019 10:50, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>> Am 13.09.19 um 10:09 schrieb Matthias Brugger:
>>>> On 12/09/2019 21:32, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>>>> Am 12.09.19 um 19:18 schrieb Matthias Brugger:
>>>>>> On 10/09/2019 11:27, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/09/2019 21:33, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 09.09.19 um 11:58 schrieb Nicolas Saenz Julienne:
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>> this series attempts to address some issues we found while bringing up
>>>>>>>>> the new Raspberry Pi 4 in arm64 and it's intended to serve as a follow
>>>>>>>>> up of these discussions:
>>>>>>>>> v4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/6/352
>>>>>>>>> v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/2/589
>>>>>>>>> v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/20/767
>>>>>>>>> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/31/922
>>>>>>>>> RFC: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/17/476
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The new Raspberry Pi 4 has up to 4GB of memory but most peripherals can
>>>>>>>>> only address the first GB: their DMA address range is
>>>>>>>>> 0xc0000000-0xfc000000 which is aliased to the first GB of physical
>>>>>>>>> memory 0x00000000-0x3c000000. Note that only some peripherals have these
>>>>>>>>> limitations: the PCIe, V3D, GENET, and 40-bit DMA channels have a wider
>>>>>>>>> view of the address space by virtue of being hooked up trough a second
>>>>>>>>> interconnect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Part of this is solved on arm32 by setting up the machine specific
>>>>>>>>> '.dma_zone_size = SZ_1G', which takes care of reserving the coherent
>>>>>>>>> memory area at the right spot. That said no buffer bouncing (needed for
>>>>>>>>> dma streaming) is available at the moment, but that's a story for
>>>>>>>>> another series.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately there is no such thing as 'dma_zone_size' in arm64. Only
>>>>>>>>> ZONE_DMA32 is created which is interpreted by dma-direct and the arm64
>>>>>>>>> arch code as if all peripherals where be able to address the first 4GB
>>>>>>>>> of memory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the light of this, the series implements the following changes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Create both DMA zones in arm64, ZONE_DMA will contain the first 1G
>>>>>>>>> area and ZONE_DMA32 the rest of the 32 bit addressable memory. So far
>>>>>>>>> the RPi4 is the only arm64 device with such DMA addressing limitations
>>>>>>>>> so this hardcoded solution was deemed preferable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Properly set ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Reserve the CMA area in a place suitable for all peripherals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This series has been tested on multiple devices both by checking the
>>>>>>>>> zones setup matches the expectations and by double-checking physical
>>>>>>>>> addresses on pages allocated on the three relevant areas GFP_DMA,
>>>>>>>>> GFP_DMA32, GFP_KERNEL:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - On an RPi4 with variations on the ram memory size. But also forcing
>>>>>>>>> the situation where all three memory zones are nonempty by setting a 3G
>>>>>>>>> ZONE_DMA32 ceiling on a 4G setup. Both with and without NUMA support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i like to test this series on Raspberry Pi 4 and i have some questions
>>>>>>>> to get arm64 running:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you use U-Boot? Which tree?
>>>>>>> If you want to use U-Boot, try v2019.10-rc4, it should have everything you need
>>>>>>> to boot your kernel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, here is a thing. In the linux kernel we now use bcm2711 as SoC name, but the
>>>>>> RPi4 devicetree provided by the FW uses mostly bcm2838.
>>>>> Do you mean the DTB provided at runtime?
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean the merged U-Boot changes, doesn't work with my Raspberry Pi
>>>>> series?
>>>>>
>>>>>> U-Boot in its default
>>>>>> config uses the devicetree provided by the FW, mostly because this way you don't
>>>>>> have to do anything to find out how many RAM you really have. Secondly because
>>>>>> this will allow us, in the near future, to have one U-boot binary for both RPi3
>>>>>> and RPi4 (and as a side effect one binary for RPi1 and RPi2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I found at least, that the following compatibles need to be added:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "brcm,bcm2838-cprman"
>>>>>> "brcm,bcm2838-gpio"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without at least the cprman driver update, you won't see anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "brcm,bcm2838-rng200" is also a candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also suppose we will need to add "brcm,bcm2838" to
>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm2711.c, but I haven't verified this.
>>>>> How about changing this in the downstream kernel? Which is much easier.
>>>> I'm not sure I understand what you want to say. My goal is to use the upstream
>>>> kernel with the device tree blob provided by the FW.
>>> The device tree blob you are talking is defined in this repository:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux
>>>
>>> So the word FW is misleading to me.
>>>
>> No, it's part of
>> https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware.git
>> file boot/bcm2711-rpi-4-b.dtb
> The compiled DT blobs incl. the kernel image are stored in this artifact
> repository. But the sources for the kernel and the DT are in the Linux
> repo. This is necessary to be compliant to the GPL.
Got it, thanks for clarifying.
>>
>>>> If you talk about the
>>>> downstream kernel, I suppose you mean we should change this in the FW DT blob
>>>> and in the downstream kernel. That would work for me.
>>>>
>>>> Did I understand you correctly?
>>> Yes
>>>
>>> So i suggest to add the upstream compatibles into the repo mentioned above.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but in case you decided as a U-Boot developer to be compatible
>>> with a unreviewed DT, we also need to make U-Boot compatible with
>>> upstream and downstream DT blobs.
>>>
>> Well RPi3 is working with the DT blob provided by the FW, as I mentioned earlier
>> if we can use this DTB we can work towards one binary that can boot both RPi3
>> and RPi4. On the other hand we can rely on the FW to detect the amount of memory
>> our RPi4 has.
>>
>> That said, I agree that we should make sure that U-Boot can boot with both DTBs,
>> the upstream one and the downstream. Now the question is how to get to this. I'm
>> a bit puzzled that by talking about "unreviewed DT" you insinuate that bcm2711
>> compatible is already reviewed and can't be changed. From what I can see none of
>> these compatibles got merged for now, so we are still at time to change them.
>
> Stephen Boyd was okay with clk changes except of a small nit. So i fixed
> this is as he suggested in a separate series. Unfortunately this hasn't
> be applied yet [1].
>
> The i2c, pinctrl and the sdhci changes has been applied yet.
>
> In my opinion it isn't the job of the mainline kernel to adapt to a
> vendor device tree. It's the vendor device tree which needs to be fixed.
>
I agree with that. But if we can make this easier by choosing a compatible which
fits downstream without violating upstream and it makes sense with the naming
scheme of the RPi, I think that's a good argument.
> Sorry, but this is my holiday. I will back after the weekend.
>
Sure, enjoy. I'll be on travel for the next two weeks but will try to keep up
with emails.
Regards,
Matthias
> Best regards
> Stefan
>
> [1] - https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-clk/msg40534.html
>
>>
>> Apart from the point Florian made, to stay consistent with the RPi SoC naming,
>> it will save us work, both in the kernel and in U-Boot, as we would need to add
>> both compatibles to the code-base.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there any config.txt tweaks necessary?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>>>>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>>>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
_______________________________________________
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:[~2019-09-13 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-09 9:58 [PATCH v5 0/4] Raspberry Pi 4 DMA addressing support Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2019-09-09 9:58 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] arm64: mm: use arm64_dma_phys_limit instead of calling max_zone_dma_phys() Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2019-09-09 9:58 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] arm64: rename variables used to calculate ZONE_DMA32's size Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2019-09-09 9:58 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] arm64: use both ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32 Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2019-09-11 10:54 ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2019-09-11 14:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-09-11 15:00 ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2019-09-09 9:58 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] mm: refresh ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32 comments in 'enum zone_type' Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2019-09-09 19:33 ` [PATCH v5 0/4] Raspberry Pi 4 DMA addressing support Stefan Wahren
2019-09-09 19:50 ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2019-09-10 9:27 ` Matthias Brugger
2019-09-12 17:18 ` Matthias Brugger
2019-09-12 17:27 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-12 19:32 ` Stefan Wahren
2019-09-13 7:15 ` Matthias Brugger
2019-09-13 8:09 ` Matthias Brugger
2019-09-13 8:50 ` Stefan Wahren
2019-09-13 9:25 ` Matthias Brugger
2019-09-13 10:08 ` Stefan Wahren
2019-09-13 10:39 ` Matthias Brugger [this message]
2019-09-16 19:19 ` Stefan Wahren
2019-09-17 9:04 ` Matthias Brugger
2019-09-17 18:03 ` Stefan Wahren
2019-09-27 16:44 ` Stefan Wahren
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=a5073e16-c017-216c-72b4-0e861102c4e8@gmail.com \
--to=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=mbrugger@suse.com \
--cc=nsaenzjulienne@suse.de \
--cc=phil@raspberrypi.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=wahrenst@gmx.net \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).