diff mbox

[RFC,3/3] of: fix node traversing in of_dma_get_range

Message ID 1490419893-5073-3-git-send-email-oza.oza@broadcom.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Delegated to: Bjorn Helgaas
Headers show

Commit Message

Oza Pawandeep March 25, 2017, 5:31 a.m. UTC
it jumps to the parent node without examining the child node.
also with that, it throws "no dma-ranges found for node"
for pci dma-ranges.

this patch fixes device node traversing for dma-ranges.

Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@broadcom.com>

Comments

Rob Herring (Arm) March 27, 2017, 2:34 p.m. UTC | #1
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@broadcom.com> wrote:
> it jumps to the parent node without examining the child node.
> also with that, it throws "no dma-ranges found for node"
> for pci dma-ranges.
>
> this patch fixes device node traversing for dma-ranges.

What's the DT look like that doesn't work?

dma-ranges is supposed to be a bus property, not a device's property.
So looking at the parent is correct behavior generally.

Rob
Robin Murphy March 27, 2017, 2:45 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Rob,

On 27/03/17 15:34, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@broadcom.com> wrote:
>> it jumps to the parent node without examining the child node.
>> also with that, it throws "no dma-ranges found for node"
>> for pci dma-ranges.
>>
>> this patch fixes device node traversing for dma-ranges.
> 
> What's the DT look like that doesn't work?

The problem is the bodge in pci_dma_configure() where we don't have an
OF node for the actual device itself, so pass in the host bridge's OF
node instead. This happens to work well enough for dma-coherent, but I
don't think dma-ranges was even considered at the time.

As it happens I'm currently halfway through writing an experiment
wherein pci_dma_configure() creates a temporary child node for the
of_dma_configure() call if no other suitable alternative (e.g. some
intermediate bridge node) exists. How hard are you likely to NAK that
approach? ;)

> dma-ranges is supposed to be a bus property, not a device's property.
> So looking at the parent is correct behavior generally.

Indeed, this patch as-is will break currently correct DTs (because we
won't find dma-ranges on the device, so will bail before even looking at
the parent as we should).

Robin.

> 
> Rob
>
Oza Pawandeep March 28, 2017, 4:50 a.m. UTC | #3
please find my comments inline.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 27/03/17 15:34, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>> it jumps to the parent node without examining the child node.
>>> also with that, it throws "no dma-ranges found for node"
>>> for pci dma-ranges.
>>>
>>> this patch fixes device node traversing for dma-ranges.
>>
>> What's the DT look like that doesn't work?
>
> The problem is the bodge in pci_dma_configure() where we don't have an
> OF node for the actual device itself, so pass in the host bridge's OF
> node instead. This happens to work well enough for dma-coherent, but I
> don't think dma-ranges was even considered at the time.
>
> As it happens I'm currently halfway through writing an experiment
> wherein pci_dma_configure() creates a temporary child node for the
> of_dma_configure() call if no other suitable alternative (e.g. some
> intermediate bridge node) exists. How hard are you likely to NAK that
> approach? ;)
>
>> dma-ranges is supposed to be a bus property, not a device's property.
>> So looking at the parent is correct behavior generally.
>
> Indeed, this patch as-is will break currently correct DTs (because we
> won't find dma-ranges on the device, so will bail before even looking at
> the parent as we should).

current parsing of dma-ranges assume that dma-ranges always to be
found in parent node.

based on that, my thinking is following:
couple of options

1)
instead while(1)  some meaningful condition such as while(!node)
the following bail out is not required.
      if (!ranges)
           break;

2)
have check based on dt-property to distinguish between pci and handle
dma-ranges root bridge

but again these changes do not solve the entire problem for choosing
right dma_mask.
neither it actually correctly address root bridge pci dma-ranges.

and hence I have written
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/27/540

my final take is: this function does not need to change, let it parse
memory mapped dma-ranges as it is doing.

I am more inclined to have generic pci dma-ranges and parsing.
which following already addresses.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/27/540

Regards,
Oza.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
index 02b2903..3293d55 100644
--- a/drivers/of/address.c
+++ b/drivers/of/address.c
@@ -836,9 +836,6 @@  int of_dma_get_range(struct device_node *np, u64 *dma_addr, u64 *paddr, u64 *siz
 	while (1) {
 		naddr = of_n_addr_cells(node);
 		nsize = of_n_size_cells(node);
-		node = of_get_next_parent(node);
-		if (!node)
-			break;
 
 		ranges = of_get_property(node, "dma-ranges", &len);
 
@@ -852,6 +849,10 @@  int of_dma_get_range(struct device_node *np, u64 *dma_addr, u64 *paddr, u64 *siz
 		 */
 		if (!ranges)
 			break;
+
+		node = of_get_next_parent(node);
+		if (!node)
+			break;
 	}
 
 	if (!ranges) {