Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a36Kqh-qscU0vsKH00ReXKk8HOYzzhbt6SxAoEBvPYuig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a2a6bf12-529c-cb20-c69f-106d34e1204a@st.com> <e804928d-deb9-668a-7012-2843ba85285e@st.com>
 <CAK8P3a36Kqh-qscU0vsKH00ReXKk8HOYzzhbt6SxAoEBvPYuig@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:00:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+M3ks4up-Xqwi8_HWn60O-iZsi4G8nX7TTfbOx32A2GN-rXOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Compilation_error_report_for=3A_drivers=2Ffirmware=2Fq?=
        =?UTF-8?Q?com=5Fscm=2Ec=3A469=3A47=3A_error=3A_passing_argument_3_of_=E2=80=98dma=5Falloc=5F?=
        =?UTF-8?Q?coherent=E2=80=99_from_incompatible_pointer_type?=
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@st.com>,
        Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>,
        "Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> , David Brown" 
        <david.brown@linaro.org>,
        "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-soc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2018-01-30 14:25 GMT+01:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Benjamin GAIGNARD
> <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/12/2018 05:11 PM, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
>>> Hello Andy,David,
>> + Arnd
>>
>> I have the same issue on drm-misc-next.
>> Does Arnaud's fix make sense or should we update/change the way of how
>> we compile the kernel ?
>
> We've hit a couple of bugs with qcom drivers confusing physical addresses
> and DMA addresses in the past, usually the drivers were buggy in
> some form, and tried to use dma_alloc_coherent() to get a buffer
> that gets passed into a firmware interface taking a physical address,
> which is of course completely wrong.
>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c
>>> index af4c752..8dfbe61 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c
>>> @@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ int qcom_scm_assign_mem(phys_addr_t mem_addr, size_t
>>> mem_sz,
>>>       struct qcom_scm_mem_map_info *mem_to_map;
>>>       phys_addr_t mem_to_map_phys;
>>>       phys_addr_t dest_phys;
>>> -     phys_addr_t ptr_phys;
>>> +     dma_addr_t ptr_phys;
>>>       size_t mem_to_map_sz;
>>>       size_t dest_sz;
>>>       size_t src_sz;
>
> This would be bad: you can basically never have a 'dma_addr_t ptr_phys': it can
> be exactly one of 'dma address',  'physical address' or a pointer,
> this claims that the
> struct member is all three of them.
>
> The proper fix here is to stop using dma_alloc_coherent.

Okay but that doesn't explain why we are the only ones to get an issue
while the parameter
doesn't match function prototype

>
>      Arnd