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] ARM: Qualify enabling of swiotlb_init()
To:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "open list:SWIOTLB SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, opendmb@gmail.com
References: <20210319040333.183827-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
 <20210319130731.GB2624@lst.de>
 <20210319195929.GA1346384@konrad-char-us-oracle-com.allregionaliads.osdevelopmeniad.oraclevcn.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2103191718210.439@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3db926f4-6047-cc62-8654-a965b8570e75@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:30:42 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2103191718210.439@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/19/21 5:22 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 02:07:31PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 09:03:33PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
>>>> +	if (swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE ||
>>>> +	    max_pfn > arm_dma_pfn_limit)
>>>
>>> Does arm_dma_pfn_limit do the right thing even with the weirdest
>>> remapping ranges?  Maybe a commen here would be useful.
>>>
>>>> +		swiotlb_init(1);
>>>> +	else
>>>> +		swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE;
>>>
>>> Konrad: what do you think of setting swiotlb_force to SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE
>>> and only switching it to SWIOTLB_NORMAL when swiotlb_init* is called?
>>> That kind makes more sense than forcing the callers to do it.
>>>
>>> While we're at it, I think swiotlb_force should probably be renamed to
>>> swiotlb_mode or somethng like that.
>>
>> swiotlb_mode sounds good.
>>
>> Also it got me thinking - ARM on Xen at some point was a bit strange, so not sure how
>> the logic works here, Stefano?
> 
> There is nothing strange in regards to swiotlb_force. swiotlb_force is only used
> in swiotlb-xen map_page to figure out whether:
> 
> - we actually have to use the swiotlb bounce buffer (this is the
>   swiotlb_xen == SWIOTLB_FORCE case)
> - or we can use the provided page directly for dma if other conditions
>   are met (dma_capable, !range_straddles_page_boundary, ...)
> 
> 
> I don't think that switching to "swiotlb_mode" would cause any issues.
> 

Should I toss this in Russell's patch tracker or do you need me to make
some changes to the patch?
-- 
Florian