Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: remove the NULL device hack in dma-mapping.h

[Joerg Roedel]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:04:23AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> dma_alloc_coherent in dma-mapping.h has a hack to use
> x86_dma_fallback_dev if a pointer to a device is NULL. Some of IOMMUs
> don't need such hack. The hack also makes it difficult for IOMMUs to
> make a proper decision because the hack hides the information.

I don't think its the right way to work around shortcomings of the
generic code in the architecture specific implementations. Especially
when the generic code can be easily fixed like in this case.

> 
> Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb_64.c |   15 ++++++++++++++-
>  include/asm-x86/dma-mapping.h    |    9 +--------
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb_64.c
> index c4ce033..f3d8d0e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb_64.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
>  
>  int swiotlb __read_mostly;
>  
> +extern struct device x86_dma_fallback_dev;
> +
>  static dma_addr_t
>  swiotlb_map_single_phys(struct device *hwdev, phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
>  			int direction)
> @@ -18,9 +20,20 @@ swiotlb_map_single_phys(struct device *hwdev, phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
>  	return swiotlb_map_single(hwdev, phys_to_virt(paddr), size, direction);
>  }
>  
> +static void *x86_swiotlb_alloc_coherent(struct device *dev, size_t size,
> +					dma_addr_t *dma_handle, gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> +	if (!dev) {
> +		dev = &x86_dma_fallback_dev;
> +		gfp |= GFP_DMA;
> +	}

This really should be checked in the generic x86 dma_alloc_coherent
function.

> +
> +	return swiotlb_alloc_coherent(dev, size, dma_handle, gfp);
> +}
> +
>  struct dma_mapping_ops swiotlb_dma_ops = {
>  	.mapping_error = swiotlb_dma_mapping_error,
> -	.alloc_coherent = swiotlb_alloc_coherent,
> +	.alloc_coherent = x86_swiotlb_alloc_coherent,
>  	.free_coherent = swiotlb_free_coherent,
>  	.map_single = swiotlb_map_single_phys,
>  	.unmap_single = swiotlb_unmap_single,
> diff --git a/include/asm-x86/dma-mapping.h b/include/asm-x86/dma-mapping.h
> index bc6c8df..3463702 100644
> --- a/include/asm-x86/dma-mapping.h
> +++ b/include/asm-x86/dma-mapping.h
> @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
>  
>  extern dma_addr_t bad_dma_address;
>  extern int iommu_merge;
> -extern struct device x86_dma_fallback_dev;
>  extern int panic_on_overflow;
>  extern int force_iommu;
>  
> @@ -251,14 +250,8 @@ dma_alloc_coherent(struct device *dev, size_t size, dma_addr_t *dma_handle,
>  	if (dma_alloc_from_coherent(dev, size, dma_handle, &memory))
>  		return memory;
>  
> -	if (!dev) {
> -		dev = &x86_dma_fallback_dev;
> -		gfp |= GFP_DMA;
> -	}

Why do you move this check to swiotlb implemenation? This will break
existing IOMMU implementations which don't check for a valid dev
pointer?

>  	if (ops->alloc_coherent)
> -		return ops->alloc_coherent(dev, size,
> -				dma_handle, gfp);
> +		return ops->alloc_coherent(dev, size, dma_handle, gfp);
>  	return NULL;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 1.5.5.GIT
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iommu mailing list
> iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/