Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] mfd: mfd-core: Don't overwrite the dma_mask of
 the child device
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
Cc:     linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=c3=b6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20200423174543.17161-1-michael@walle.cc>
 <20200423174543.17161-3-michael@walle.cc>
 <20200428124548.GS185537@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Message-ID: <3cd3705a-4f48-6a46-e869-3ee11dc17323@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:06:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200428124548.GS185537@smile.fi.intel.com>
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 2020-04-28 1:45 pm, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 07:45:29PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>> Commit cdfee5623290 ("driver core: initialize a default DMA mask for
>> platform device") initialize the DMA of a platform device. But if the
>> parent doesn't have a dma_mask set, for example if it's an I2C device,
>> the dma_mask of the child platform device will be set to zero again.
>> Which leads to many "DMA mask not set" warnings, if the MFD cell has the
>> of_compatible property set.
> 
> I'm wondering why parent doesn't have it.

Because the parent isn't on a DMA-capable bus, and thus really shouldn't 
have a valid DMA configuration ever.

> I remember we have explicit patches in the past for buses such as PCI and AMBA
> to set default DMA mask for all physical devices on the respective bus, of
> course they can individually override it later.
> 
> So, this seems to me a paper over the real issue (absence of default DMA mask
> where it's needed) and devices should explicitly define it if they disagree
> with default.
> 
> If I'm wrong, you really need elaborate commit message much better.

The problem here is that MFD children are created as platform devices 
(regardless of what their parent is) and assigned an of_node, at which 
point they look pretty much indistinguishable from SoC devices created 
by the of_platform code, that *do* have to be assumed to be DMA-capable 
to prevent ~90% of existing devicetrees from breaking.

Of course the real fundamental issue is the platform bus itself, but 
it's way too late to fix that :(

Robin.