Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754217AbbBERsq (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:48:46 -0500 Received: from foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com ([217.140.108.86]:42110 "EHLO foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750931AbbBERso (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:48:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:48:27 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Al Stone Cc: "msalter@redhat.com" , Mark Langsdorf , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , Will Deacon , "wangyijing@huawei.com" , Rob Herring , Timur Tabi , Daniel Lezcano , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , "jcm@redhat.com" , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Ashwin Chaugule , Randy Dunlap , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 02/21] acpi: fix acpi_os_ioremap for arm64 Message-ID: <20150205174826.GD21970@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1422881149-8177-3-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <2422968.Es7R0p3loO@vostro.rjw.lan> <1422984576.18187.82.camel@deneb.redhat.com> <20150204112508.GB26006@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1423066107.18187.99.camel@deneb.redhat.com> <20150204175734.GI26006@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1423076294.18187.103.camel@deneb.redhat.com> <20150205104149.GA18158@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1423144447.18187.110.camel@deneb.redhat.com> <54D39D6B.5090304@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54D39D6B.5090304@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2172 Lines: 43 On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 04:42:19PM +0000, Al Stone wrote: > On 02/05/2015 06:54 AM, Mark Salter wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 10:41 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:58:14PM +0000, Mark Salter wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 17:57 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 04:08:27PM +0000, Mark Salter wrote: > >>>>> acpi_os_remap() is used to map ACPI tables. These tables may be in ram > >>>>> which are already included in the kernel's linear RAM mapping. So we > >>>>> need ioremap_cache to avoid two mappings to the same physical page > >>>>> having different caching attributes. > >>>> > >>>> What's the call path to acpi_os_ioremap() on such tables already in the > >>>> linear mapping? I can see an acpi_map() function which already takes > >>>> care of the RAM mapping case but there are other cases where > >>>> acpi_os_ioremap() is called directly. For example, > >>>> acpi_os_read_memory(), can it be called on both RAM and I/O? > >>> > >>> acpi_map() is the one I've seen. > >> > >> By default, if should_use_kmap() is not patched for arm64, it translates > >> to page_is_ram(); acpi_map() would simply use a kmap() which returns the > >> current kernel linear mapping on arm64. > > > > The problem with kmap() is that it only maps a single page. I've seen > > tables over 4k which is why I patched acpi_map() not to use kmap() on > > arm64. > > Right. Mark replied to this before I could; using kmap() enforced a 4k > (one page) limit that we kept breaking with some ACPI tables being larger > than that (DSDTs and SSDTs, fwiw). This would lead to some very odd behaviors > when most but not all of a device definition was within the page; using the > table checksums was one way of detecting the issues. OK. So I think Mark's original patch was ok, assuming that the System Memory cases mentioned by Graeme are detected with page_is_ram(). -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/