| Message ID | 20240802075100.6475-2-fancer.lancer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dmaengine: dw: Fix src/dst addr width misconfig | expand |
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 10:50:46AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > Currently the src_addr_width and dst_addr_width fields of the > dma_slave_config structure are mapped to the CTLx.SRC_TR_WIDTH and > CTLx.DST_TR_WIDTH fields of the peripheral bus side in order to have the > properly aligned data passed to the target device. It's done just by > converting the passed peripheral bus width to the encoded value using the > __ffs() function. This implementation has several problematic sides: > > 1. __ffs() is undefined if no bit exist in the passed value. Thus if the > specified addr-width is DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED, __ffs() may return > unexpected value depending on the platform-specific implementation. > > 2. DW AHB DMA-engine permits having the power-of-2 transfer width limited > by the DMAH_Mk_HDATA_WIDTH IP-core synthesize parameter. Specifying > bus-width out of that constraints scope will definitely cause unexpected > result since the destination reg will be only partly touched than the > client driver implied. > > Let's fix all of that by adding the peripheral bus width verification > method and calling it in dwc_config() which is supposed to be executed > before preparing any transfer. The new method will make sure that the > passed source or destination address width is valid and if undefined then > the driver will just fallback to the 1-byte width transfer. This patch broke Intel Merrifield iDMA32 + SPI PXA2xx configuration to me. Since it's first in the series and most likely the rest is dependent and we are almost at the release date I propose to roll back and start again after v6.12-rc1 will be out. Vinod, can we revert the entire series, please?
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:12:35PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 10:50:46AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > Currently the src_addr_width and dst_addr_width fields of the > > dma_slave_config structure are mapped to the CTLx.SRC_TR_WIDTH and > > CTLx.DST_TR_WIDTH fields of the peripheral bus side in order to have the > > properly aligned data passed to the target device. It's done just by > > converting the passed peripheral bus width to the encoded value using the > > __ffs() function. This implementation has several problematic sides: > > > > 1. __ffs() is undefined if no bit exist in the passed value. Thus if the > > specified addr-width is DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED, __ffs() may return > > unexpected value depending on the platform-specific implementation. > > > > 2. DW AHB DMA-engine permits having the power-of-2 transfer width limited > > by the DMAH_Mk_HDATA_WIDTH IP-core synthesize parameter. Specifying > > bus-width out of that constraints scope will definitely cause unexpected > > result since the destination reg will be only partly touched than the > > client driver implied. > > > > Let's fix all of that by adding the peripheral bus width verification > > method and calling it in dwc_config() which is supposed to be executed > > before preparing any transfer. The new method will make sure that the > > passed source or destination address width is valid and if undefined then > > the driver will just fallback to the 1-byte width transfer. > > This patch broke Intel Merrifield iDMA32 + SPI PXA2xx configuration to > me. Since it's first in the series and most likely the rest is > dependent and we are almost at the release date I propose to roll back > and start again after v6.12-rc1 will be out. Vinod, can we revert the > entire series, please? I guess it's not the best option, since the patch has already been backported to the stable kernels anyway. Rolling back it from all of them seems tiresome. Let's at least try to fix the just discovered problem? Could you please provide more details about what exactly happening? -Serge(y) > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >
Hi, Op 14-09-2024 om 21:22 schreef Serge Semin: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:12:35PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 10:50:46AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: >>> Currently the src_addr_width and dst_addr_width fields of the >>> dma_slave_config structure are mapped to the CTLx.SRC_TR_WIDTH and >>> CTLx.DST_TR_WIDTH fields of the peripheral bus side in order to have the >>> properly aligned data passed to the target device. It's done just by >>> converting the passed peripheral bus width to the encoded value using the >>> __ffs() function. This implementation has several problematic sides: >>> >>> 1. __ffs() is undefined if no bit exist in the passed value. Thus if the >>> specified addr-width is DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED, __ffs() may return >>> unexpected value depending on the platform-specific implementation. >>> >>> 2. DW AHB DMA-engine permits having the power-of-2 transfer width limited >>> by the DMAH_Mk_HDATA_WIDTH IP-core synthesize parameter. Specifying >>> bus-width out of that constraints scope will definitely cause unexpected >>> result since the destination reg will be only partly touched than the >>> client driver implied. >>> >>> Let's fix all of that by adding the peripheral bus width verification >>> method and calling it in dwc_config() which is supposed to be executed >>> before preparing any transfer. The new method will make sure that the >>> passed source or destination address width is valid and if undefined then >>> the driver will just fallback to the 1-byte width transfer. >> This patch broke Intel Merrifield iDMA32 + SPI PXA2xx configuration to >> me. Since it's first in the series and most likely the rest is >> dependent and we are almost at the release date I propose to roll back >> and start again after v6.12-rc1 will be out. Vinod, can we revert the >> entire series, please? Indeed all six need to be reverted due to dependency. >> I guess it's not the best option, since the patch has already been >> backported to the stable kernels anyway. Rolling back it from all of >> them seems tiresome. Let's at least try to fix the just discovered >> problem? >> >> Could you please provide more details about what exactly happening? I can reproduce (after working around another issue with the following tip from Andy: The DMA module is loaded _after_ the SPI, and for some reason the DMA engine APIs haven't returned deferred probe and hence the SPI considered the absence of DMA even if we have ACPI description non-fatal. So, you may try to manually unload SPI and load again and it should start showing DMA). On 6.11.0-rc6 I get: root@edison:~# ./spidev_test -D /dev/spidev5.1 -l spi mode: 0x20 bits per word: 8 max speed: 500000 Hz (500 kHz) can't send spi message: Device or resource busy Aborted (core dumped) And on 6.11.0-rc7 with the 6 patches reverted: root@edison:~# ./spidev_test -D /dev/spidev5.1 -l -v spi mode: 0x20 bits per word: 8 max speed: 500000 Hz (500 kHz) TX | FF FF FF FF FF FF 40 00 00 00 00 95 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF F0 0D |......@.........................| RX | FF FF FF FF FF FF 40 00 00 00 00 95 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF F0 0D |......@.........................| >> -Serge(y) >> >> -- >> With Best Regards, >> Andy Shevchenko >> >>
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:22:22PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:12:35PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 10:50:46AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > Currently the src_addr_width and dst_addr_width fields of the > > > dma_slave_config structure are mapped to the CTLx.SRC_TR_WIDTH and > > > CTLx.DST_TR_WIDTH fields of the peripheral bus side in order to have the > > > properly aligned data passed to the target device. It's done just by > > > converting the passed peripheral bus width to the encoded value using the > > > __ffs() function. This implementation has several problematic sides: > > > > > > 1. __ffs() is undefined if no bit exist in the passed value. Thus if the > > > specified addr-width is DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED, __ffs() may return > > > unexpected value depending on the platform-specific implementation. > > > > > > 2. DW AHB DMA-engine permits having the power-of-2 transfer width limited > > > by the DMAH_Mk_HDATA_WIDTH IP-core synthesize parameter. Specifying > > > bus-width out of that constraints scope will definitely cause unexpected > > > result since the destination reg will be only partly touched than the > > > client driver implied. > > > > > > Let's fix all of that by adding the peripheral bus width verification > > > method and calling it in dwc_config() which is supposed to be executed > > > before preparing any transfer. The new method will make sure that the > > > passed source or destination address width is valid and if undefined then > > > the driver will just fallback to the 1-byte width transfer. > > > > This patch broke Intel Merrifield iDMA32 + SPI PXA2xx configuration to > > me. Since it's first in the series and most likely the rest is > > dependent and we are almost at the release date I propose to roll back > > and start again after v6.12-rc1 will be out. Vinod, can we revert the > > entire series, please? > > I guess it's not the best option, since the patch has already been > backported to the stable kernels anyway. Rolling back it from all of > them seems tiresome. Let's at least try to fix the just discovered > problem? Please, provide one we can test! > Could you please provide more details about what exactly happening? Sure. AFAICT the only problematic line is this: else if (!is_power_of_2(reg_width) || reg_width > max_width) in your patch, and it may trigger, for example, when max_width == 0. This, in accordance with my brief investigation, happens due to the following. The DMA slave configuration is being copied twice in DW DMA code: 1) when respective filter function triggers (see acpi/of glue code); 2) when the channel is about to be allocated. The iDMA32 has only a single master, and hence m_master == p_master, BUT the filter function in the acpi code is universal and it copies the wrong (from the iDMA32 perspective) value to p_master. As the result, when you retrieve the max_width, it takes the value from p_master, which is defined to 1 (sic!), and hence assigns it to 0. I don't know how to quickfix this as the proper fix seems to provide the correct data in the first place. Any ideas, patches we may test?
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 02:43:48PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:22:22PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:12:35PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 10:50:46AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > Currently the src_addr_width and dst_addr_width fields of the > > > > dma_slave_config structure are mapped to the CTLx.SRC_TR_WIDTH and > > > > CTLx.DST_TR_WIDTH fields of the peripheral bus side in order to have the > > > > properly aligned data passed to the target device. It's done just by > > > > converting the passed peripheral bus width to the encoded value using the > > > > __ffs() function. This implementation has several problematic sides: > > > > > > > > 1. __ffs() is undefined if no bit exist in the passed value. Thus if the > > > > specified addr-width is DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED, __ffs() may return > > > > unexpected value depending on the platform-specific implementation. > > > > > > > > 2. DW AHB DMA-engine permits having the power-of-2 transfer width limited > > > > by the DMAH_Mk_HDATA_WIDTH IP-core synthesize parameter. Specifying > > > > bus-width out of that constraints scope will definitely cause unexpected > > > > result since the destination reg will be only partly touched than the > > > > client driver implied. > > > > > > > > Let's fix all of that by adding the peripheral bus width verification > > > > method and calling it in dwc_config() which is supposed to be executed > > > > before preparing any transfer. The new method will make sure that the > > > > passed source or destination address width is valid and if undefined then > > > > the driver will just fallback to the 1-byte width transfer. > > > > > > This patch broke Intel Merrifield iDMA32 + SPI PXA2xx configuration to > > > me. Since it's first in the series and most likely the rest is > > > dependent and we are almost at the release date I propose to roll back > > > and start again after v6.12-rc1 will be out. Vinod, can we revert the > > > entire series, please? > > > > I guess it's not the best option, since the patch has already been > > backported to the stable kernels anyway. Rolling back it from all of > > them seems tiresome. Let's at least try to fix the just discovered > > problem? > > Please, provide one we can test! > > > Could you please provide more details about what exactly happening? > > Sure. AFAICT the only problematic line is this: > > else if (!is_power_of_2(reg_width) || reg_width > max_width) > > in your patch, and it may trigger, for example, when max_width == 0. > This, in accordance with my brief investigation, happens due to the following. > > The DMA slave configuration is being copied twice in DW DMA code: > 1) when respective filter function triggers (see acpi/of glue code); > 2) when the channel is about to be allocated. > > The iDMA32 has only a single master, and hence m_master == p_master, > BUT the filter function in the acpi code is universal and it copies > the wrong (from the iDMA32 perspective) value to p_master. > As the result, when you retrieve the max_width, it takes the value from > p_master, which is defined to 1 (sic!), and hence assigns it to 0. > > I don't know how to quickfix this as the proper fix seems to provide > the correct data in the first place. > > Any ideas, patches we may test? P.S. for your advocacy it seems that your change actually revealed an inconsistency in the existing code. But still, it made a regression.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 02:45:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 02:43:48PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:22:22PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:12:35PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 10:50:46AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > Currently the src_addr_width and dst_addr_width fields of the > > > > > dma_slave_config structure are mapped to the CTLx.SRC_TR_WIDTH and > > > > > CTLx.DST_TR_WIDTH fields of the peripheral bus side in order to have the > > > > > properly aligned data passed to the target device. It's done just by > > > > > converting the passed peripheral bus width to the encoded value using the > > > > > __ffs() function. This implementation has several problematic sides: > > > > > > > > > > 1. __ffs() is undefined if no bit exist in the passed value. Thus if the > > > > > specified addr-width is DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED, __ffs() may return > > > > > unexpected value depending on the platform-specific implementation. > > > > > > > > > > 2. DW AHB DMA-engine permits having the power-of-2 transfer width limited > > > > > by the DMAH_Mk_HDATA_WIDTH IP-core synthesize parameter. Specifying > > > > > bus-width out of that constraints scope will definitely cause unexpected > > > > > result since the destination reg will be only partly touched than the > > > > > client driver implied. > > > > > > > > > > Let's fix all of that by adding the peripheral bus width verification > > > > > method and calling it in dwc_config() which is supposed to be executed > > > > > before preparing any transfer. The new method will make sure that the > > > > > passed source or destination address width is valid and if undefined then > > > > > the driver will just fallback to the 1-byte width transfer. > > > > > > > > This patch broke Intel Merrifield iDMA32 + SPI PXA2xx configuration to > > > > me. Since it's first in the series and most likely the rest is > > > > dependent and we are almost at the release date I propose to roll back > > > > and start again after v6.12-rc1 will be out. Vinod, can we revert the > > > > entire series, please? > > > > > > I guess it's not the best option, since the patch has already been > > > backported to the stable kernels anyway. Rolling back it from all of > > > them seems tiresome. Let's at least try to fix the just discovered > > > problem? > > > > Please, provide one we can test! > > > > > Could you please provide more details about what exactly happening? > > > > Sure. AFAICT the only problematic line is this: > > > > else if (!is_power_of_2(reg_width) || reg_width > max_width) > > > > in your patch, and it may trigger, for example, when max_width == 0. > > This, in accordance with my brief investigation, happens due to the following. > > > > The DMA slave configuration is being copied twice in DW DMA code: > > 1) when respective filter function triggers (see acpi/of glue code); > > 2) when the channel is about to be allocated. > > > > The iDMA32 has only a single master, and hence m_master == p_master, > > BUT the filter function in the acpi code is universal and it copies > > the wrong (from the iDMA32 perspective) value to p_master. > > As the result, when you retrieve the max_width, it takes the value from > > p_master, which is defined to 1 (sic!), and hence assigns it to 0. Okay that was the theory, now I made a hack patch, i.e. supply 0 in acpi.c in the filter function and everything starts to work. So, my theory is correct. > > I don't know how to quickfix this as the proper fix seems to provide > > the correct data in the first place. > > > > Any ideas, patches we may test? > > P.S. for your advocacy it seems that your change actually revealed an > inconsistency in the existing code. But still, it made a regression.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 02:57:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 02:45:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > Okay that was the theory, now I made a hack patch, i.e. supply 0 in acpi.c in > the filter function and everything starts to work. So, my theory is correct. FWIW, I have reapplied the whole series and it seems fine, so the only regression is that I described in the previous replies.
Hi Andy, Ferry On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 03:46:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 02:57:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 02:45:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > ... > > > Okay that was the theory, now I made a hack patch, i.e. supply 0 in acpi.c in > > the filter function and everything starts to work. So, my theory is correct. > > FWIW, I have reapplied the whole series and it seems fine, so the only regression > is that I described in the previous replies. Just submitted a fix of the issue based on the Andy' and my problem investigation. You've been Cc'ed. Please test the patch out on your hardware: https://lore.kernel.org/dmaengine/20240919135854.16124-1-fancer.lancer@gmail.com Hope it works. -Serge(y) > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >
diff --git a/drivers/dma/dw/core.c b/drivers/dma/dw/core.c index 4b3402156eae..d4c694b0f55a 100644 --- a/drivers/dma/dw/core.c +++ b/drivers/dma/dw/core.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/interrupt.h> #include <linux/io.h> +#include <linux/log2.h> #include <linux/mm.h> #include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/slab.h> @@ -780,10 +781,43 @@ bool dw_dma_filter(struct dma_chan *chan, void *param) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dw_dma_filter); +static int dwc_verify_p_buswidth(struct dma_chan *chan) +{ + struct dw_dma_chan *dwc = to_dw_dma_chan(chan); + struct dw_dma *dw = to_dw_dma(chan->device); + u32 reg_width, max_width; + + if (dwc->dma_sconfig.direction == DMA_MEM_TO_DEV) + reg_width = dwc->dma_sconfig.dst_addr_width; + else if (dwc->dma_sconfig.direction == DMA_DEV_TO_MEM) + reg_width = dwc->dma_sconfig.src_addr_width; + else /* DMA_MEM_TO_MEM */ + return 0; + + max_width = dw->pdata->data_width[dwc->dws.p_master]; + + /* Fall-back to 1-byte transfer width if undefined */ + if (reg_width == DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED) + reg_width = DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_1_BYTE; + else if (!is_power_of_2(reg_width) || reg_width > max_width) + return -EINVAL; + else /* bus width is valid */ + return 0; + + /* Update undefined addr width value */ + if (dwc->dma_sconfig.direction == DMA_MEM_TO_DEV) + dwc->dma_sconfig.dst_addr_width = reg_width; + else /* DMA_DEV_TO_MEM */ + dwc->dma_sconfig.src_addr_width = reg_width; + + return 0; +} + static int dwc_config(struct dma_chan *chan, struct dma_slave_config *sconfig) { struct dw_dma_chan *dwc = to_dw_dma_chan(chan); struct dw_dma *dw = to_dw_dma(chan->device); + int ret; memcpy(&dwc->dma_sconfig, sconfig, sizeof(*sconfig)); @@ -792,6 +826,10 @@ static int dwc_config(struct dma_chan *chan, struct dma_slave_config *sconfig) dwc->dma_sconfig.dst_maxburst = clamp(dwc->dma_sconfig.dst_maxburst, 0U, dwc->max_burst); + ret = dwc_verify_p_buswidth(chan); + if (ret) + return ret; + dw->encode_maxburst(dwc, &dwc->dma_sconfig.src_maxburst); dw->encode_maxburst(dwc, &dwc->dma_sconfig.dst_maxburst);
Currently the src_addr_width and dst_addr_width fields of the dma_slave_config structure are mapped to the CTLx.SRC_TR_WIDTH and CTLx.DST_TR_WIDTH fields of the peripheral bus side in order to have the properly aligned data passed to the target device. It's done just by converting the passed peripheral bus width to the encoded value using the __ffs() function. This implementation has several problematic sides: 1. __ffs() is undefined if no bit exist in the passed value. Thus if the specified addr-width is DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED, __ffs() may return unexpected value depending on the platform-specific implementation. 2. DW AHB DMA-engine permits having the power-of-2 transfer width limited by the DMAH_Mk_HDATA_WIDTH IP-core synthesize parameter. Specifying bus-width out of that constraints scope will definitely cause unexpected result since the destination reg will be only partly touched than the client driver implied. Let's fix all of that by adding the peripheral bus width verification method and calling it in dwc_config() which is supposed to be executed before preparing any transfer. The new method will make sure that the passed source or destination address width is valid and if undefined then the driver will just fallback to the 1-byte width transfer. Fixes: 029a40e97d0d ("dmaengine: dw: provide DMA capabilities") Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com> --- Changelog v2: - Add a note to the commit message about having the verification method called in the dwc_config() function. (Andy) - Add hyphen to "1byte" in the in-situ comment. (Andy) - Convert "err" to "ret" variable. (Andy) --- drivers/dma/dw/core.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)