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
References: <20190611092144.11194-1-oded.gabbay@gmail.com> <20190611095857.GB24058@kroah.com>
 <20190611151753.GA11404@infradead.org> <20190611152655.GA3972@kroah.com> <CAFCwf13A73AxKzaa7Dk3tU-1NDgTFs4+xCO2os7SuSyUHZ9Z3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFCwf13A73AxKzaa7Dk3tU-1NDgTFs4+xCO2os7SuSyUHZ9Z3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 20:22:43 +0300
Message-ID: <CAFCwf134nTD4FM_9Q+THQ7ZAZzGxhs15O6EheaRJMqM5wxi+aA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] habanalabs: enable 64-bit DMA mask in POWER9
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     "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

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:03 PM Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:26 PM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 08:17:53AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:58:57AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > That feels like a big hack.  ppc doesn't have any "what arch am I
> > > > running on?" runtime call?  Did you ask on the ppc64 mailing list?  I'm
> > > > ok to take this for now, but odds are you need a better fix for this
> > > > sometime...
> > >
> > > That isn't the worst part of it.  The whole idea of checking what I'm
> > > running to set a dma mask just doesn't make any sense at all.
> >
> > Oded, I thought I asked if there was a dma call you should be making to
> > keep this type of check from being needed.  What happened to that?  As
> > Christoph points out, none of this should be needed, which is what I
> > thought I originally said :)
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> I'm sorry, but it seems I can't explain what's my problem because you
> and Christoph keep mentioning the pci_set_dma_mask() but it doesn't
> help me.
> I'll try again to explain.
>
> The main problem specifically for Goya device, is that I can't call
> this function with *the same parameter* for POWER9 and x86-64, because
> x86-64 supports dma mask of 48-bits while POWER9 supports only 32-bits
> or 64-bits.
>
> The main limitation in my Goya device is that it can generate PCI
> outbound transactions with addresses from 0 to (2^50 - 1).
> That's why when we first integrated it in x86-64, we used a DMA mask
> of 48-bits, by calling pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, 48). That way, the
> kernel ensures me that all the DMA addresses are from 0 to (2^48 - 1),
> and that address range is accessible by my device.
>
> If for some reason, the x86-64 machine doesn't support 48-bits, the
> standard fallback code in ALL the drivers I have seen is to set the
> DMA mask to 32-bits. And that's how my current driver's code is
> written.
>
> Now, when I tried to integrate Goya into a POWER9 machine, I got a
> reject from the call to pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, 48). The standard code,
> as I wrote above, is to call the same function with 32-bits. That
> works BUT it is not practical, as our applications require much more
> memory mapped then 32-bits. In addition, once you add more cards which
> are all mapped to the same range, it is simply not usable at all.
>
> Therefore, I consulted with POWER people and they told me I can call
> to pci_set_dma_mask with the mask as 64, but I must make sure that ALL
> outbound transactions from Goya will be with bit 59 set in the
> address.
> I can achieve that with a dedicated configuration I make in Goya's
> PCIe controller. That's what I did and that works.
>
> So, to summarize:
> If I call pci_set_dma_mask with 48, then it fails on POWER9. However,
> in runtime, I don't know if its POWER9 or not, so upon failure I will
> call it again with 32, which makes our device pretty much unusable.
> If I call pci_set_dma_mask with 64, and do the dedicated configuration
> in Goya's PCIe controller, then it won't work on x86-64, because bit
> 59 will be set and the host won't like it (I checked it). In addition,
> I might get addresses above 50 bits, which my device can't generate.
>
> I hope this makes things more clear. Now, please explain to me how I
> can call pci_set_dma_mask without any regard to whether I run on
> x86-64 or POWER9, considering what I wrote above ?
>
> Thanks,
> Oded

Adding ppc mailing list.

Oded