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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-mapping: Relax warnings for per-device areas
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     noring@nocrew.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, JuergenUrban@gmx.de
References: <1f8262d206c6886072d04cc93454f6e3f812bd20.1530623284.git.robin.murphy@arm.com>
 <20180705193613.GA28905@lst.de>
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Message-ID: <5811ebe5-b2bd-efc1-bf54-a8f05432c4f8@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jul 2018 12:57:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180705193613.GA28905@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/07/18 20:36, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> -	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.

Right, I was rather on the fence about this - on the one hand it is 
objectively wrong per the API for drivers to call dma_alloc_coherent() 
without a prior successful dma_set_coherent_mask() call, but then I 
thought that in the case when they're *only* using it as a proxy for 
dma_alloc_from_dev_coherent() and explicitly don't want regular 
allocations from kernel memory to ever happen, then maybe it might be 
somewhat reasonable. But indeed I hadn't really given enough thought to 
the reserved-memory carveout case, where we definitely don't want to let 
a legitimate warning be hidden on a developer's machine but hit by users 
with different system configurations.

Fredrik, are you happy to fix up your driver to initialise a suitable 
mask at probe time?

Robin.