On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 12:28 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:11 +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > I encountered following issue:
> > [ 0.283035] ibmvscsi 30000015: couldn't initialize event pool
> > [ 5.688822] ibmvscsi: probe of 30000015 failed with error -1
> >
> > which prevents the storage from being recognized, and the machine from
> > booting.
> >
> > After some digging, it seems that it is caused by commit 4886c399da
> >
> > as dma_mask pointer in viodev->dev is not set, so in
> > dma_set_mask_and_coherent(), dma_set_coherent_mask() is not called
> > because dma_set_mask(), which is dma_set_mask_pSeriesLP() returned EIO.
> > While before the commit, dma_set_coherent_mask() is always called.
> >
> > I tried to replace dma_set_mask_and_coherent() with
> > dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(), and the machine could boot again.
> >
> > But I'm not sure whether this is the correct fix...
>
> Russell, care to chime in ? I can't make sense of the semantics...
>
> The original commit was fairly clear:
>
> <<
> Replace the following sequence:
>
> dma_set_mask(dev, mask);
> dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, mask);
>
> with a call to the new helper dma_set_mask_and_coherent().
> >>
>
> It all makes sense so far ... but doesn't work for some odd reason,
> and the "fix" uses a function whose name doesn't make much sense to
> me ... what is the difference between "setting" and "coercing"
> the mask ? And why doe replacing two "set" with a "set both" doesn't
> work and require a coerce ?
I think the difference is because the check of return value from
dma_set_mask in dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent():
--
int rc = dma_set_mask(dev, mask);
if (rc == 0)
dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, mask);
--
and in struct device {, dma_mask is a pointer, while coherent_dma_mask
is value (don't know why we have this difference).
And here for pseries, dma_set_mask() failed because the dma_mask pointer
still remains null.
And in dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(), the dma_mask is set with the
address of coherent_dma_mask
--
dev->dma_mask = &dev->coherent_dma_mask;
--
Thanks, Zhong
>
> I'm asking because I'm worried about breakage elsewhere...
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c
> > index e7d0c88..76a6482 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vio.c
> > @@ -1419,7 +1419,7 @@ struct vio_dev *vio_register_device_node(struct
> > device_node *of_node)
> >
> > /* needed to ensure proper operation of coherent allocations
> > * later, in case driver doesn't set it explicitly */
> > - dma_set_mask_and_coherent(&viodev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
> > + dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(&viodev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
> > }
> >
> > /* register with generic device framework */
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
