Re: [PATCH 08/10] swiotlb-xen: introduce phys_to_dma/dma_to_phys translations

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 21 May 2020, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 5/20/20 7:45 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Call dma_to_phys in is_xen_swiotlb_buffer.
> > Call phys_to_dma in xen_phys_to_bus.
> > Call dma_to_phys in xen_bus_to_phys.
> >
> > Everything is taken care of by these changes except for
> > xen_swiotlb_alloc_coherent and xen_swiotlb_free_coherent, which need a
> > few explicit phys_to_dma/dma_to_phys calls.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> > index c50448fd9b75..d011c4c7aa72 100644
> > --- a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> > +++ b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> > @@ -64,14 +64,16 @@ static inline dma_addr_t xen_phys_to_bus(struct device 
> > *dev, phys_addr_t paddr)
> >  
> >     dma |= paddr & ~XEN_PAGE_MASK;
> >  
> > -   return dma;
> > +   return phys_to_dma(dev, dma);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static inline phys_addr_t xen_bus_to_phys(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t 
> > baddr)
> > +static inline phys_addr_t xen_bus_to_phys(struct device *dev,
> > +                                     dma_addr_t dma_addr)
> 
> 
> Since now dma address != bus address this is no longer
> xen_bus_to_phys(). (And I guess the same is rue for xen_phys_to_bus()).

Should I rename them to xen_dma_to_phys and xen_phys_to_dma?

 
> >  {
> > +   phys_addr_t baddr = dma_to_phys(dev, dma_addr);
> >     unsigned long xen_pfn = bfn_to_pfn(XEN_PFN_DOWN(baddr));
> > -   dma_addr_t dma = (dma_addr_t)xen_pfn << XEN_PAGE_SHIFT;
> > -   phys_addr_t paddr = dma;
> > +   phys_addr_t paddr = (xen_pfn << XEN_PAGE_SHIFT) |
> > +                       (baddr & ~XEN_PAGE_MASK);
> >  
> >     paddr |= baddr & ~XEN_PAGE_MASK;
> 
> 
> This line needs to go, no?

Yes, good point