On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 15:35 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:54:38PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 11:58 +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > >  /*
> > > - * Return the maximum physical address for ZONE_DMA32 (DMA_BIT_MASK(32)).
> > > 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 with a given address
> > > size
> > > + * limit. It currently assumes that for memory starting above 4G, 32-bit
> > > + * devices will use a DMA offset.
> > >   */
> > > -static phys_addr_t __init max_zone_dma32_phys(void)
> > > +static phys_addr_t __init max_zone_phys(unsigned int zone_bits)
> > >  {
> > >         phys_addr_t offset = memblock_start_of_DRAM() & GENMASK_ULL(63,
> > > 32);
> > > -       return min(offset + (1ULL << 32), memblock_end_of_DRAM());
> > > +       return min(offset + (1ULL << zone_bits), memblock_end_of_DRAM());
> > >  }
> > 
> > while testing other code on top of this series on odd arm64 machines I found
> > an
> > issue: when memblock_start_of_DRAM() != 0, max_zone_phys() isn't taking into
> > account the offset to the beginning of memory. This doesn't matter with
> > zone_bits == 32 but it does when zone_bits == 30.
> 
> I thought about this but I confused myself and the only case I had in
> mind was an AMD Seattle system with RAM starting at 4GB.

I found the issue on a Cavium ThunderX2 server. Oddly enough the memory starts
at 0x802f0000.

> What we need from this function is that the lowest naturally aligned
> 2^30 RAM is covered by ZONE_DMA while the rest to 2^32 are ZONE_DMA32.
> This assumed that devices only capable of 30-bit (or 32-bit), have the
> top address bits hardwired to be able access the bottom of the memory
> (and this would be expressed in DT as the DMA offset).

Ok, I was testing a fix I wrote under these assumptions...

> I guess the fix here is to use GENMASK_ULL(63, zone_bits).

...but this is way cleaner than my solution. Thanks!

Regards,
Nicolas