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, 29 Nov 2018 19:35:06 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] drm: msm: Replace dma_map_sg with dma_sync_sg*
Message-ID: <20181129183506.GC30281@lst.de>
References: <20181129140315.28476-1-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> <20181129141429.GA22638@lst.de> <CAF6AEGvsFbXGkC+=4oq1xXnoC2EVX2J0k-GqShefcek1=uw4Lw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKMK7uHOKtX2a12itSA0sDg=b77F+0vnLAdEvc_aNGRJTh85=Q@mail.gmail.com> <20181129155758.GC26537@lst.de> <20181129162807.GL21184@phenom.ffwll.local> <20181129165715.GA27786@lst.de> <CAKMK7uECLeTbEjG6=unWZSKakpiYkmBVbCEKKY2xv=vVjF-pBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAFQd5A-Bh711VaNWhRJqcrofkBVCMFcNgqfztoyWJcUdhSu0Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAFQd5A-Bh711VaNWhRJqcrofkBVCMFcNgqfztoyWJcUdhSu0Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:24:17AM -0800, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Whether the cache maintenance operation needs to actually do anything
> or not is a function of `dev`. We can have some devices that are
> coherent with CPU caches, and some that are not, on the same system.

Yes, but that part is not decided by these low-level helpers but their
callers in the DMA code (or maybe IOMMU code as well in the future).

> There is also the use case of using CMA with device-specific pools of
> memory reusable by the system when not used by the device and those
> would have to somehow get the pool to allocate from, but I wonder if
> struct device is the right way to pass such information. I'd see the
> pool given explicitly like cma_alloc(struct cma_pool *, size, flags)
> and perhaps a wrapper cma_alloc_default(size, flags) that is just a
> simple macro calling cma_alloc(&cma_pool_default, size, flags).

Yes, the cma APIs have quite a few warts that need addressing.
I have a few of those things on my todo list, but help is always
welcome.