On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 1:30 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 03:47:14PM +0100, Albert Esteve wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 2:20 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 01:33:47PM +0100, Albert Esteve wrote:
> > > > Add a dma-buf heap for DT coherent reserved-memory
> > > > (i.e., 'shared-dma-pool' without 'reusable' property),
> > > > exposing one heap per region for userspace buffers.
> > > >
> > > > The heap binds the heap device to each memory region so
> > > > coherent allocations use the correct dev->dma_mem, and
> > > > it defers registration until module_init when normal
> > > > allocators are available.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Albert Esteve <aesteve(a)redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 4 +-
> > > > drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Kconfig | 9 +
> > > > drivers/dma-buf/heaps/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > drivers/dma-buf/heaps/coherent_heap.c | 426 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > include/linux/dma-heap.h | 11 +
> > > > include/linux/dma-map-ops.h | 7 +
> > > > 6 files changed, 456 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c
> > > > index 88189d4e48561..ba87e5ac16ae2 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c
> > > > @@ -390,8 +390,8 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info)
> > > >
> > > > heap = dma_heap_create(exp_info);
> > > > if (IS_ERR(heap)) {
> > > > - pr_err("dma_heap: failed to create heap (%d)\n", PTR_ERR(heap));
> > > > - return PTR_ERR(heap);
> > > > + pr_err("dma_heap: failed to create heap (%ld)\n", PTR_ERR(heap));
> > > > + return ERR_CAST(heap);
> > >
> > > This looks unrelated and should possibly be squashed into the previous
> > > patch that introduces dma_heap_create()?
> > >
> > > > +static int coherent_heap_init_dma_mask(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
> > > > + if (!ret)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Fallback to 32-bit DMA mask */
> > > > + return dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Why do you need to mess with the DMA mask? I'd expect that device to be
> > > able to access everything.
> >
> > When I tested I was getting: "reserved memory is beyond device's set
> > DMA address range", so I tested if it was fixed with
> > dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent() and/or dma_set_mask_coherent(). I did
> > not debug the value of coherent_dma_mask, but given the error I assume
> > it was not set properly? Ultimately, using the 64 bit mask fixed it,
> > and I added a 32-bit fallback to ensure support for 32-bit systems.
>
> So you don't need to handle the fallback because
> dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent will truncate the generated mask to
> dma_addr_t, which is 64bits on 64 bits platforms, and 32 bits on 32 bits
> platforms.
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.19.3/source/kernel/dma/mapping.c#L908
Good! I didn't realise that. I will remove it for the next revision.
>
> But I think my point was more than there's nothing specific to the
> coherent heap itself: the device allocated for the heap should have the
> right mask for any heap, so it's something I'd rather put in
> dma_heap_add.
That was my first take too. But when I checked, I did not see
dma_heap_add() doing anything to dev->coherent_dma_mask. So I assumed
the problem relates to the rmem being bound, which triggers the check
to ensure the memory pool is within boundaries. That's a specific
issue with the coherent heap, so it sounds like it would be better
handled here in the heap-specific code rather than in
`dma_heap_add()`, which would affect all the dmabuf heaps.
That being said, setting the mask is probably(?) harmless for the
other heaps anyway, so I would be fine with moving it -- to
dma_heap_create() to be more specific.
BR,
Albert.
>
> > > > +static int __coherent_heap_register(struct reserved_mem *rmem)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct dma_heap_export_info exp_info;
> > > > + struct coherent_heap *coh_heap;
> > > > + struct device *heap_dev;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!rmem || !rmem->name)
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + coh_heap = kzalloc_obj(*coh_heap);
> > > > + if (!coh_heap)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + coh_heap->rmem = rmem;
> > > > + coh_heap->name = kstrdup(rmem->name, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!coh_heap->name) {
> > > > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > + goto free_coherent_heap;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + exp_info.name = coh_heap->name;
> > > > + exp_info.ops = &coherent_heap_ops;
> > > > + exp_info.priv = coh_heap;
> > > > +
> > > > + coh_heap->heap = dma_heap_create(&exp_info);
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(coh_heap->heap)) {
> > > > + ret = PTR_ERR(coh_heap->heap);
> > > > + goto free_name;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + heap_dev = dma_heap_get_dev(coh_heap->heap);
> > > > + ret = coherent_heap_init_dma_mask(heap_dev);
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + pr_err("coherent_heap: failed to set DMA mask (%d)\n", ret);
> > > > + goto destroy_heap;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = of_reserved_mem_device_init_with_mem(heap_dev, rmem);
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + pr_err("coherent_heap: failed to initialize memory (%d)\n", ret);
> > > > + goto destroy_heap;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = dma_heap_register(coh_heap->heap);
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + pr_err("coherent_heap: failed to register heap (%d)\n", ret);
> > > > + goto destroy_heap;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > I guess it's more of a comment about your previous patch, but it's not
> > > clear to me why you needed to split dma_heap_add into dma_heap_create /
> > > _register. Can you expand a bit?
> >
> > So first I tried to just use dma_heap_add() and then use the heap_dev
> > afterward to call of_reserved_mem_device_init_with_mem(), but if that
> > call failed, the error path required some kind dma_heap_remove()
> > function as the heap was already registered by then.
> >
> > In the CMA heap for example, dma_heap_add() is invoked at the end of
> > the `init` function. Therefore, you do not have this issue, if it
> > failed it means the heap was not added and you just need to clean
> > everything else.
> >
> > However, performing a remove() does not sound like something that can
> > be done safely. I've spent some time thinking on alternatives, but
> > splitting felt the best pattern.
> >
> > This way I can:
> > 1. Create the device
> > 2. Call of_reserved_mem_device_init_with_mem
> > 3. Register the heap
> >
> > This places registration at the end, making every error path and
> > cleanup easy to handle.
> >
> > Also, the `dma_heap_add()` code already seemed to handle these two
> > parts/phases implicitly with device_create(), so splitting felt
> > architecturally sound.
>
> That makes sense, thanks!
>
> Maxime