Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] of: fix node traversing in of_dma_get_range

[Oza Oza]

please find my comments inline.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 27/03/17 15:34, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> it jumps to the parent node without examining the child node.
>>> also with that, it throws "no dma-ranges found for node"
>>> for pci dma-ranges.
>>>
>>> this patch fixes device node traversing for dma-ranges.
>>
>> What's the DT look like that doesn't work?
>
> The problem is the bodge in pci_dma_configure() where we don't have an
> OF node for the actual device itself, so pass in the host bridge's OF
> node instead. This happens to work well enough for dma-coherent, but I
> don't think dma-ranges was even considered at the time.
>
> As it happens I'm currently halfway through writing an experiment
> wherein pci_dma_configure() creates a temporary child node for the
> of_dma_configure() call if no other suitable alternative (e.g. some
> intermediate bridge node) exists. How hard are you likely to NAK that
> approach? ;)
>
>> dma-ranges is supposed to be a bus property, not a device's property.
>> So looking at the parent is correct behavior generally.
>
> Indeed, this patch as-is will break currently correct DTs (because we
> won't find dma-ranges on the device, so will bail before even looking at
> the parent as we should).

current parsing of dma-ranges assume that dma-ranges always to be
found in parent node.

based on that, my thinking is following:
couple of options

1)
instead while(1)  some meaningful condition such as while(!node)
the following bail out is not required.
      if (!ranges)
           break;

2)
have check based on dt-property to distinguish between pci and handle
dma-ranges root bridge

but again these changes do not solve the entire problem for choosing
right dma_mask.
neither it actually correctly address root bridge pci dma-ranges.

and hence I have written
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/27/540

my final take is: this function does not need to change, let it parse
memory mapped dma-ranges as it is doing.

I am more inclined to have generic pci dma-ranges and parsing.
which following already addresses.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/27/540

Regards,
Oza.