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;
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 19:16:21 +0800
From:   Li Chen <me@linux.beauty>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     "dmaengine" <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
Message-ID: <18901b7f7f4.10c6f89c4692094.481698950513259776@linux.beauty>
In-Reply-To: <ZJwTV59xRlUBit+N@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <18901a6cbf0.c9e3e099688173.4166132371304083225@linux.beauty> <ZJwTV59xRlUBit+N@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Should dma_map_single take the dma controller or its consumer
 as an argument?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Medium
User-Agent: Zoho Mail
Precedence: bulk

Hi Russell,

 ---- On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 19:02:47 +0800  Russell King (Oracle)  wrote --- 
 > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:57:35PM +0800, Li Chen wrote:
 > > Hi all,
 > > 
 > > I recently encountered an issue where the dma_mask was set in the DMA controller's driver, but the consumer peripheral driver didn't set its own dma_mask.
 > 
 > It should always take the device that is *actually* performing the DMA,
 > since that is the device that has restrictions on what addresses can be
 > accessed, etc.
 > 
 > Devices that "consume" the data from a DMA controller don't access
 > memory - they are merely the targets, and they can't on their own access
 > host memory. Therefore, their dma mask _should_ be irrelevant.

Thanks for your quick response. Therefore, I just need to use chan->device->dev in my dma_map_single and there is no need to configure the dma_mask for my consumer peripherals.

Regards,
Li