Linux-PCI Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	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>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] PCI: rcar: Do not abort on too many inbound dma-ranges
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:06:55 +0100
Message-ID: <20191018100655.GA47056@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <06d093b2-dcc2-a01f-fce0-5db0bc47325e@gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:33:24AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 10/17/19 12:26 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> [...]
> >>>> You can have multiple non-continuous DRAM banks for example. And an
> >>>> entry for SRAM optionally. Each DRAM bank and/or the SRAM should have a
> >>>> separate dma-ranges entry, right ?
> >>>
> >>> Not necessarily. We really only want to define the minimum we have to.
> >>> The ideal system is no dma-ranges. Is each bank at a different
> >>> relative position compared to the CPU's view of the system. That would
> >>> seem doubtful for just DRAM banks. Perhaps DRAM and SRAM could change.
> >>
> >> Is that a question ? Anyway, yes, there is a bit of DRAM below the 32bit
> >> boundary and some more above the 32bit boundary. These two banks don't
> >> need to be continuous. And then you could add the SRAM into the mix.
> > 
> > Continuous is irrelevant. My question was in more specific terms is
> > (bank1 addr - bank0 addr) different for CPU's view (i.e phys addr) vs.
> > PCI host view (i.e. bus addr)? If not, then that is 1 translation and
> > 1 dma-ranges entry.
> 
> I don't think it's different in that aspect. Except the bus has this
> 32bit limitation, where it only sees subset of the DRAM.
> 
> Why should the DMA ranges incorrectly cover also the DRAM which is not
> present ?

I think this is where there is a difference in understanding.

If I understand correctly, the job of the dma-ranges property isn't to
describe *what* ranges the PCI device can access - it's there to describe
*how*, i.e. the mapping between PCI and CPU-visible memory.

The dma-ranges property is a side-effect of how the busses are wired up
between the CPU and PCI controller - and so it doesn't matter what is or
isn't on those buses.

It's the job of other parts of the system to ensure that PCI devices are
told the correct addresses to write to, e.g. the enumerating software
referring to a valid CPU visible address correctly translated for the view
of the PCI device, ATS etc. And any IOMMU to enforce that.

It sounds like there is a 1:1 mapping between CPU and PCI - in which case
there isn't a reason for a dma-ranges.

Thanks,

Andrew Murray

> 
> >>> I suppose if your intent is to use inbound windows as a poor man's
> >>> IOMMU to prevent accesses to the holes, then yes you would list them
> >>> out. But I think that's wrong and difficult to maintain. You'd also
> >>> need to deal with reserved-memory regions too.
> >>
> >> What's the problem with that? The bootloader has all that information
> >> and can patch the DT correctly. In fact, in my specific case, I have
> >> platform which can be populated with differently sized DRAM, so the
> >> holes are also dynamically calculated ; there is no one DT then, the
> >> bootloader is responsible to generate the dma-ranges accordingly.
> > 
> > The problems are it doesn't work:
> > 
> > Your dma-mask and offset are not going to be correct.
> > 
> > You are running out of inbound windows. Your patch does nothing to
> > solve that. The solution would be merging multiple dma-ranges entries
> > to a single inbound window. We'd have to do that both for dma-mask and
> > inbound windows. The former would also have to figure out which
> > entries apply to setting up dma-mask. I'm simply suggesting just do
> > that up front and avoid any pointless splits.
> 
> But then the PCI device can trigger a transaction to non-existent DRAM
> and cause undefined behavior. Surely we do not want that ?
> 
> > You are setting up random inbound windows. The bootloader can't assume
> > what order the OS parses dma-ranges, and the OS can't assume what
> > order the bootloader writes the entries.
> 
> But the OS can assume the ranges are correct and cover only valid
> memory, right ? That is, memory into which the PCI controller can safely
> access.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut

  parent 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
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 [this message]
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=20191018100655.GA47056@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=andrew.murray@arm.com \
    --cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --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