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:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 18:00:55 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
Cc:     robh+dt@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, ardb@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        will@kernel.org, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] arm64: mm: Set ZONE_DMA size based on early IORT
 scan
Message-ID: <20201030180055.GD23196@gaia>
References: <20201029172550.3523-1-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
 <20201029172550.3523-7-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201029172550.3523-7-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:25:49PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> index 9929ff50c0c0..05fe4a076bab 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> @@ -1718,3 +1718,55 @@ void __init acpi_iort_init(void)
>  
>  	iort_init_platform_devices();
>  }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
> +/*
> + * Check the IORT whether any devices exist whose DMA mask is < 32 bits.
> + * If so, return the smallest value encountered, or 32 otherwise.
> + */
> +unsigned int __init acpi_iort_get_zone_dma_size(void)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_table_iort *iort;
> +	struct acpi_iort_node *node, *end;
> +	acpi_status status;
> +	u8 limit = 32;

Nitpick: can we not return PHYS_ADDR_MAX here, for consistency with
of_dma_get_max_cpu_address()? There wouldn't be any functional change.

-- 
Catalin