Re: [PATCH v4 09/16] dma-mapping: handle MMIO flow in dma_map|unmap_page

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 08:36:53PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Extend base DMA page API to handle MMIO flow and follow
> existing dma_map_resource() implementation to rely on dma_map_direct()
> only to take DMA direct path.

I would reword this a little bit too

dma-mapping: implement DMA_ATTR_MMIO for dma_(un)map_page_attrs()

Make dma_map_page_attrs() and dma_map_page_attrs() respect
DMA_ATTR_MMIO.

DMA_ATR_MMIO makes the functions behave the same as dma_(un)map_resource():
 - No swiotlb is possible
 - Legacy dma_ops arches use ops->map_resource()
 - No kmsan
 - No arch_dma_map_phys_direct()

The prior patches have made the internl funtions called here support
DMA_ATTR_MMIO.

This is also preparation for turning dma_map_resource() into an inline
calling dma_map_phys(DMA_ATTR_MMIO) to consolidate the flows.

> @@ -166,14 +167,25 @@ dma_addr_t dma_map_page_attrs(struct device *dev, 
> struct page *page,
>               return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
>  
>       if (dma_map_direct(dev, ops) ||
> -         arch_dma_map_phys_direct(dev, phys + size))
> +         (!is_mmio && arch_dma_map_phys_direct(dev, phys + size)))
>               addr = dma_direct_map_phys(dev, phys, size, dir, attrs);

PPC is the only user of arch_dma_map_phys_direct() and it looks like
it should be called on MMIO memory. Seems like another inconsistency
with map_resource. I'd leave it like the above though for this series.

>       else if (use_dma_iommu(dev))
>               addr = iommu_dma_map_phys(dev, phys, size, dir, attrs);
> -     else
> +     else if (is_mmio) {
> +             if (!ops->map_resource)
> +                     return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;

Probably written like:

                if (ops->map_resource)
                        addr = ops->map_resource(dev, phys, size, dir, attrs);
                else
                        addr = DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;

As I think some of the design here is to run the trace even on the
failure path?

Otherwise looks OK

Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>

Jason