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;
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 21:36:13 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     hch@lst.de, m.szyprowski@samsung.com,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        noring@nocrew.org, JuergenUrban@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-mapping: Relax warnings for per-device areas
Message-ID: <20180705193613.GA28905@lst.de>
References: <1f8262d206c6886072d04cc93454f6e3f812bd20.1530623284.git.robin.murphy@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1f8262d206c6886072d04cc93454f6e3f812bd20.1530623284.git.robin.murphy@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> -	BUG_ON(!ops);
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(dev && !dev->coherent_dma_mask);
> -
>  	if (dma_alloc_from_dev_coherent(dev, size, dma_handle, &cpu_addr))
>  		return cpu_addr;
>  
> +	BUG_ON(!ops);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(dev && !dev->coherent_dma_mask);

I think doing dma on a device without ops is completely broken no matter
what you think of it, so I very much disagree with that part of the change.

Also while I don't think not having a dma mask is a good idea even for
a driver purely using dma coherent pools.  If the pools really are on
the device itself I can see why it might not matter, but for the case
commonly used on some ARM SOCs where we just reserve memory for certain
devices from a system pool it very much does matter.

There really is no good excuse to not set a coherent mask in the drivers.