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;
Date:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:13:54 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        will@kernel.org, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        hch@lst.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] of/fdt: Update zone_dma_bits when running in bcm2711
Message-ID: <20201008101353.GE7661@gaia>
References: <20201001161740.29064-1-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
 <20201001161740.29064-2-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
 <20201001171500.GN21544@gaia>
 <20201001172320.GQ21544@gaia>
 <b47232e2173e9e5ddf8f5be4c7b5a2f897f34eb7.camel@suse.de>
 <20201002115541.GC7034@gaia>
 <12f33d487eabd626db4c07ded5a1447795eed355.camel@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <12f33d487eabd626db4c07ded5a1447795eed355.camel@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 12:05:25PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 12:55 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 07:31:19PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 18:23 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 06:15:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 06:17:37PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > > > > > index 4602e467ca8b..cd0d115ef329 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > > > > > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> > > > > >  #include <linux/serial_core.h>
> > > > > >  #include <linux/sysfs.h>
> > > > > >  #include <linux/random.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/dma-direct.h>	/* for zone_dma_bits */
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  #include <asm/setup.h>  /* for COMMAND_LINE_SIZE */
> > > > > >  #include <asm/page.h>
> > > > > > @@ -1198,6 +1199,14 @@ void __init early_init_dt_scan_nodes(void)
> > > > > >  	of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_memory, NULL);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > +void __init early_init_dt_update_zone_dma_bits(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	unsigned long dt_root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(dt_root, "brcm,bcm2711"))
> > > > > > +		zone_dma_bits = 30;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think we could keep this entirely in the arm64 setup_machine_fdt() and
> > > > > not pollute the core code with RPi4-specific code.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, even better, could we not move the check to
> > > > arm64_memblock_init() when we initialise zone_dma_bits?
> > > 
> > > I did it this way as I vaguely remembered Rob saying he wanted to centralise
> > > all early boot fdt code in one place. But I'll be happy to move it there.
> > 
> > I can see Rob replied and I'm fine if that's his preference. However,
> > what I don't particularly like is that in the arm64 code, if
> > zone_dma_bits == 24, we set it to 32 assuming that it wasn't touched by
> > the early_init_dt_update_zone_dma_bits(). What if at some point we'll
> > get a platform that actually needs 24 here (I truly hope not, but just
> > the principle of relying on magic values)?
> > 
> > So rather than guessing, I'd prefer if the arch code can override
> > ZONE_DMA_BITS_DEFAULT. Then, in arm64, we'll just set it to 32 and no
> > need to explicitly touch the zone_dma_bits variable.
> 
> Yes, sonds like the way to go. TBH I wasn't happy with that solution either,
> but couldn't think of a nicer alternative.
> 
> Sadly I just realised that the series is incomplete, we have RPi4 users that
> want to boot unsing ACPI, and this series would break things for them. I'll
> have a word with them to see what we can do for their use-case.

Is there a way to get some SoC information from ACPI?

-- 
Catalin