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:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:30:22 +0000
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Amit Shah <amit@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH virtio] virtio: virtio_console: fix DMA memory allocation
 for rproc serial
Message-ID: <20201116163022.GC16619@infradead.org>
References: <AOKowLclCbOCKxyiJ71WeNyuAAj2q8EUtxrXbyky5E@cp7-web-042.plabs.ch>
 <20201116091950.GA30524@infradead.org>
 <20201116071910-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <u9RJBckNwnezQttAPrOyEqDYKu0rnhedUZYGpaS83qg@cp3-web-024.plabs.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <u9RJBckNwnezQttAPrOyEqDYKu0rnhedUZYGpaS83qg@cp3-web-024.plabs.ch>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 01:07:28PM +0000, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> But lots of subsystems like netdev for example uses dev->parent for
> DMA operations. I know that their pointers go directly to the
> platform/PCI/etc. device, but still.

Oh, every drivers is perfectly fine to use ->parent as it suits.  The
problem is when we have layered architectures, where this pokes a
massive hole into the layering.

> The only reason behind "fake" DMA devices for rproc is to be able to
> reserve DMA memory through the Device Tree exclusively for only one
> virtio dev like virtio_console or virtio_rpmsg_bus. That's why
> they are present, are coercing DMA caps from physical dev
> representor, and why questinable dma_declare_coherent_memory()
> is still here and doesn't allow to build rproc core as a module.
> I agree that this is not the best model obviously, and we should take
> a look at it.

As far as I can tell the series from Arnaud does the right thing here.