Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <e75f3f16-566d-7da8-f4fa-7a54f4027de7@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:29:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.4.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-xenon: Fix 2G limitation on AC5 SoC
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Hu Ziji <huziji@marvell.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Elad Nachman <enachman@marvell.com>, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        Mickey Rachamim <mickeyr@marvell.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
References: <20220808095237.GA15939@plvision.eu>
 <6c94411c-4847-526c-d929-c9523aa65c11@intel.com>
 <20220808122652.GA6599@plvision.eu>
 <3f96b382-aede-1f52-33cb-5f95715bdf59@intel.com>
 <3d16ebad-ea6c-555e-2481-ca5fb08a6c66@arm.com>
 <20220816205129.GA6438@plvision.eu>
 <94888b3b-8f54-367d-c6b4-5ebfeeafe4c4@arm.com>
 <20220817160730.GA17202@plvision.eu>
 <80d2538c-bac4-cc4f-85ae-352fcf86321d@arm.com>
 <20220818120740.GA21548@plvision.eu> <YwHOCHmKaf7yfgOD@infradead.org>
 <3b88438d-1bb0-e980-b4db-1f8663dc6042@arm.com>
 <VI1P190MB031779C030CAED8026D53D1895259@VI1P190MB0317.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <VI1P190MB0317DC34760DFDE69F69A700953F9@VI1P190MB0317.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <a9605f47-2f11-0ed3-d513-717c1935b83d@intel.com>
 <VI1P190MB03177BC73BCF70EF1AD0A349953E9@VI1P190MB0317.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy, Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki,
 Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4, Domiciled in Helsinki
In-Reply-To: <VI1P190MB03177BC73BCF70EF1AD0A349953E9@VI1P190MB0317.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/11/22 10:40, Vadym Kochan wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 09:50:06 +0200, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 8/11/22 21:05, Vadym Kochan wrote:
>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 09:40:00 +0300, Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu> wrote:
>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:06:43 +0100, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-08-21 07:17, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 03:07:40PM +0300, Vadym Kochan wrote:
>>>>>>> It works with the following changes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      #1 dma-ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x2 0x0 0x0 0x80000000>;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      #3 swiotlb="force"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it OK to force the memory allocation from the start for the swiotlb ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be ok, but isn't really optimal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if we should just allow DT to specify the swiotlb buffer
>>>>>> location.  Basically have yet another RESERVEDMEM_OF_DECLARE variant
>>>>>> for it, which shouldn't be all that much work except for figuring
>>>>>> out the interaction with the various kernel command line options.
>>>>>
>>>>> We already have all the information we need in the DT (and ACPI), the 
>>>>> arm64 init code just needs to do a better job of interpreting it 
>>>>> properly. I'll see what I can come up with once I've finished what I'm 
>>>>> currently tied up in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to disturb you, I just 'd like to know if you have
>>>> some ideas to share or patches to test ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since AC5X eMMC controller can fail to work on boards with >2GB memory,
>>> and considering that the best fix may not be easy (as it requires arm64 infra changes),
>>> so would it be OK to use PIO mode as temporary solution ?
>>>
>>> I understand that arm64 changes might not be trivial and it might take significant
>>> amount of time to implement considering this unusual case, I just think that better
>>> to make eMMC working even if it will be slow.
>>
>> You can disable DMA if you wish:
>> 	SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_DMA | SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_ADMA
>> however did you consider SDMA:
>> 	SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_ADMA
>> which uses a bounce buffer allocated by SDHCI?
>>
>> In any case, you need to add comments to the code
>> and commit message explaining the swiotlb issue.
>>
> 
> There is a snip from my earlier reply:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> I could use DMA only in 2 ways:
>>
>> #1 Use sdhci bounce buffer with SDMA mode
>>
>>     But there was the issue that SDMA requires that SDHCI v4 mode should
>>     be enabled, and when I enable it via sdhci_enable_v4_mode(host)
>>     then I got error that EXT_CSD can't be recognized.
>>
>>     But if I comment this line in sdhci.c:
>>     
>>     int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>     {
>>         ...
>>
>> 	/* SDMA does not support 64-bit DMA if v4 mode not set */
>> 	if ((host->flags & SDHCI_USE_64_BIT_DMA) && !host->v4_mode) {

Do you need 64-bit DMA?  The 2G limitation is still
within 32-bits isn't it?

>> 		pr_info("XXX SDMA does not support 64-bit DMA if v4 mode not set\n");
>> 		host->flags &= ~SDHCI_USE_SDMA;
>> 	}
>>
>>        ...
>>     }
>>
>>     then everything is OK.
>>
>> #2 Use restricted-dma-pool in device-tree
>>
>>    But I am not sure if it is good solution compared to #1.
>>
>> Setting only DMA mask did not help because after some time I got
>> "DMA overflow address" error stack-traces.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Regards,
> Vadym