Linux-PCI Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
	"open list:MEDIA DRIVERS FOR RENESAS - FCP" 
	<linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] PCI: rcar: Do not abort on too many inbound dma-ranges
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:53:45 +0100
Message-ID: <20191018095345.GD25918@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5a19fcd3-2071-334a-1c4a-59d07f4a387d@gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:01:26PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

[...]

> > Again, just handling the first N dma-ranges entries and ignoring the
> > rest is not 'configure the controller correctly'.
> 
> It's the best effort thing to do. It's well possible the next generation
> of the controller will have more windows, so could accommodate the whole
> list of ranges.
> 
> Thinking about this further, this patch should be OK either way, if
> there is a DT which defines more DMA ranges than the controller can
> handle, handling some is better than failing outright -- a PCI which
> works with a subset of memory is better than PCI that does not work at all.

OK to sum it up, this patch is there to deal with u-boot adding multiple
dma-ranges to DT. I still do not understand the benefit given that for
DMA masks they are useless as Rob pointed out and ditto for inbound
windows programming (given that AFAICS the PCI controller filters out
any transaction that does not fall within its inbound windows by default
so adding dma-ranges has the net effect of widening the DMA'able address
space rather than limiting it).

In short, what's the benefit of adding more dma-ranges regions to the
DT (and consequently handling them in the kernel) ?

Thanks,
Lorenzo

> >>> And realistically, if the address
> >>> isn't valid then it's not going to make much difference anyway - in
> >>> probably 99% of cases, either the transaction doesn't hit a window and
> >>> the host bridge returns a completer abort, or it does hit a window, the
> >>> AXI side returns DECERR or SLVERR, and the host bridge translates that
> >>> into a completer abort. Consider also that many PCI IPs don't have
> >>> discrete windows and just map the entirety of PCI mem space directly to
> >>> the system PA space.
> >>
> >> And in that 1% of cases, we are OK with failure which could have been
> >> easily prevented if the controller was programmed correctly ? That does
> >> not look like a good thing.
> > 
> > You don't need dma-ranges if you want to handle holes in DRAM. Use
> > memblock to get this information. Then it will work if you boot using
> > UEFI too.
> 
> Do you have any further details about this ?
> 
> > dma-ranges at the PCI bridge should be restrictions in the PCI bridge,
> > not ones somewhere else in the system.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut

  reply index

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-09 17:57 [PATCH V3 1/3] PCI: rcar: Move the inbound index check marek.vasut
2019-08-09 17:57 ` [PATCH V3 2/3] PCI: rcar: Do not abort on too many inbound dma-ranges marek.vasut
2019-08-16 13:23   ` Simon Horman
2019-08-16 13:28     ` Marek Vasut
2019-08-16 13:38       ` Simon Horman
2019-08-16 17:41         ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-21 10:18       ` Andrew Murray
2019-10-26 18:03         ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-26 20:36           ` Andrew Murray
2019-10-26 21:06             ` Andrew Murray
2019-11-06 23:37             ` Marek Vasut
2019-11-07 14:19               ` Andrew Murray
2019-11-16 15:48                 ` Marek Vasut
2019-11-18 18:42                   ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-16 15:00   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-16 15:10     ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-16 15:26       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-16 15:29         ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-16 16:18           ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-16 18:12             ` Rob Herring
2019-10-16 18:17               ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-16 20:25                 ` Rob Herring
2019-10-16 21:15                   ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-16 22:26                     ` Rob Herring
2019-10-16 22:33                       ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-17  7:06                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-17 10:55                           ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-17 13:06                             ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-17 14:00                               ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-17 14:36                                 ` Rob Herring
2019-10-17 15:01                                   ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-18  9:53                                     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2019-10-18 12:22                                       ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-18 12:53                                         ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-18 14:26                                           ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-18 15:44                                             ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-18 16:44                                               ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-18 17:35                                                 ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-18 18:44                                                   ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-21  8:32                                                     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-11-19 12:10                                                     ` Robin Murphy
2019-10-18 10:06                         ` Andrew Murray
2019-10-18 10:17                           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-18 11:40                             ` Andrew Murray
2019-08-09 17:57 ` [PATCH V3 3/3] PCI: rcar: Recalculate inbound range alignment for each controller entry marek.vasut
2019-10-21 10:39   ` Andrew Murray
2019-08-16 10:52 ` [PATCH V3 1/3] PCI: rcar: Move the inbound index check Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-08-16 10:59   ` Marek Vasut
2019-08-16 11:10     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-15 20:14 ` Marek Vasut
2019-10-21 10:11 ` Andrew Murray

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=20191018095345.GD25918@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    /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

Linux-PCI Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/0 linux-pci/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-pci linux-pci/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci \
		linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-pci

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-pci


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git