Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] of/pci: dma-ranges to account highest possible host bridge dma_mask

2017-03-30 Thread Oza Oza via iommu
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Oza Oza wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep >>> wrote: it is possible that PCI device supports 64-bit DMA addressing,

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] of/pci: dma-ranges to account highest possible host bridge dma_mask

2017-03-29 Thread Oza Oza via iommu
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Oza Oza wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 28/03/17 06:27, Oza Oza wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Rob Herring wrote: On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep wrote: > it is possible that PCI de

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] of/pci: dma-ranges to account highest possible host bridge dma_mask

2017-03-28 Thread Oza Oza via iommu
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 28/03/17 06:27, Oza Oza wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep >>> wrote: it is possible that PCI device supports 64-bit DMA addressing, and thus it's d

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] of/pci: dma-ranges to account highest possible host bridge dma_mask

2017-03-28 Thread Robin Murphy
On 28/03/17 06:27, Oza Oza wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep wrote: >>> it is possible that PCI device supports 64-bit DMA addressing, >>> and thus it's driver sets device's dma_mask to DMA_BIT_MASK(64), >>> however PCI

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] of/pci: dma-ranges to account highest possible host bridge dma_mask

2017-03-28 Thread Rob Herring
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Oza Oza wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep wrote: >>> it is possible that PCI device supports 64-bit DMA addressing, >>> and thus it's driver sets device's dma_mask to DMA_BIT_MASK(64),

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] of/pci: dma-ranges to account highest possible host bridge dma_mask

2017-03-27 Thread Oza Oza via iommu
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep wrote: >> it is possible that PCI device supports 64-bit DMA addressing, >> and thus it's driver sets device's dma_mask to DMA_BIT_MASK(64), >> however PCI host bridge may have limitations on the

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] of/pci: dma-ranges to account highest possible host bridge dma_mask

2017-03-27 Thread Rob Herring
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Oza Pawandeep wrote: > it is possible that PCI device supports 64-bit DMA addressing, > and thus it's driver sets device's dma_mask to DMA_BIT_MASK(64), > however PCI host bridge may have limitations on the inbound > transaction addressing. As an example, consider

[RFC PATCH 1/3] of/pci: dma-ranges to account highest possible host bridge dma_mask

2017-03-24 Thread Oza Pawandeep via iommu
it is possible that PCI device supports 64-bit DMA addressing, and thus it's driver sets device's dma_mask to DMA_BIT_MASK(64), however PCI host bridge may have limitations on the inbound transaction addressing. As an example, consider NVME SSD device connected to iproc-PCIe controller. Currently,