Re: [PATCH 31/33] dma-direct: reject too small dma masks

[Robin Murphy]

On 10/01/18 15:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:49:34AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
> > > +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS))
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +#else
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Because 32-bit DMA masks are so common we expect every architecture
> > > +	 * to be able to satisfy them - either by not supporting more physical
> > > +	 * memory, or by providing a ZONE_DMA32.  If neither is the case, the
> > > +	 * architecture needs to use an IOMMU instead of the direct mapping.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (mask < DMA_BIT_MASK(32))
> > > +		return 0;
> >
> > Do you think it's worth the effort to be a little more accommodating here?
> > i.e.:
> >
> > 		return dma_max_pfn(dev) >= max_pfn;
> >
> > We seem to have a fair few 28-31 bit masks for older hardware which
> > probably associates with host systems packing equivalently small amounts of
> > RAM.
>
> And those devices don't have a ZONE_DMA?  I think we could do something
> like that, but I'd rather have it as a separate commit with a good
> explanation.  Maybe you can just send on on top of the series?

Good point - other than the IXP4xx platform and possibly the Broadcom 
network drivers, it's probably only x86-relevant stuff where the concern 
is moot. Let's just keep the simple assumption then, until actually 
proven otherwise.

Robin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html