From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=203.18.50.4; helo=nat-hk.nvidia.com; envelope-from=ashishsingha@nvidia.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from nat-hk.nvidia.com (nat-hk.nvidia.com [203.18.50.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C23C92194EB75 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:58:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from hkpgpgate101.nvidia.com (Not Verified[10.18.92.77]) by nat-hk.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, DES-CBC3-SHA) id ; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 07:58:18 +0800 Received: from HKMAIL102.nvidia.com ([10.18.16.11]) by hkpgpgate101.nvidia.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:58:18 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hkpgpgate101.nvidia.com on Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:58:18 -0800 Received: from HKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.18.16.11) by HKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.18.16.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:58:16 +0000 Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.33.50) by HKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.18.16.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:58:16 +0000 Received: from DM6PR12MB3324.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (20.178.31.154) by DM6PR12MB3083.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (20.178.30.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1665.15; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:58:12 +0000 Received: from DM6PR12MB3324.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f8d4:91e2:b81b:3b81]) by DM6PR12MB3324.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f8d4:91e2:b81b:3b81%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1643.022; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:58:12 +0000 From: Ashish Singhal To: "Cohen, Eugene" , "Wu, Hao A" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , Ard Biesheuvel Thread-Topic: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit systems Thread-Index: AdTOimUh6bq74L7bQyCZsF0hnADHfgAhuWlQABE+2EAAEKP68AABVU+wAANAbhAAAOJ+kAAA/hKAAAC2wPAAAuBuQA== Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:58:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: msip_labels: MSIP_Label_6b558183-044c-4105-8d9c-cea02a2a3d86_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_6b558183-044c-4105-8d9c-cea02a2a3d86_SiteId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a; MSIP_Label_6b558183-044c-4105-8d9c-cea02a2a3d86_Owner=ashishsingha@nvidia.com; MSIP_Label_6b558183-044c-4105-8d9c-cea02a2a3d86_SetDate=2019-02-28T23:58:11.4848336Z; MSIP_Label_6b558183-044c-4105-8d9c-cea02a2a3d86_Name=Unrestricted; MSIP_Label_6b558183-044c-4105-8d9c-cea02a2a3d86_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_6b558183-044c-4105-8d9c-cea02a2a3d86_Extended_MSFT_Method=Automatic; Sensitivity=Unrestricted authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ashishsingha@nvidia.com; x-originating-ip: [8.46.90.104] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0d809f74-4ca6-479e-4221-08d69dd89938 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DM6PR12MB3083; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR12MB3083: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 4 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: =?us-ascii?Q?1; DM6PR12MB3083; 23:5dS0ztgLHglXTDoYfEWXfoN8SM2wqbUojIzKOUbQv?= =?us-ascii?Q?E5CHhBYiUoWt++BN593mEz+sUkp4vxi8VwkcVrX1IROY7Y7boziB2QcGDbyn?= =?us-ascii?Q?nFOFJ2a3XPQoFAwqvH1oN5lqUtopL4FD/w7lWDmGp4uTSzeMV1XPQ/UolIY6?= =?us-ascii?Q?1HkMv0vM9bjYzUBDo1inaV/YgNflPTOxadcCW8y6lC1B3BjjO5rJVXWbgeE5?= =?us-ascii?Q?+QKUiHEb3/IMinLqBLlagoY3iua3ScKoTeA1fZ+wQWjQLFcok96XOqrpxY1u?= =?us-ascii?Q?lJpz8Wcn5kGKROzp2v/M11tj1AvwHXF7StTOO5I6bVPjFYNfJmTVPbcXfTne?= =?us-ascii?Q?dRcstX7J5xMSTTyvfpVYMJRxZMKOtQClcJM4ETQrEP1JFIyzwqsy0dbkeTbZ?= =?us-ascii?Q?LuIROQL1pxYBqjHkeGZL5WE9QPD5fZjToK50Vhf6qiuVyK/qhUdZoVNtxqju?= =?us-ascii?Q?jUEfmmuSZB6pUy9BLjXHzQOrG3jfhgxPvIoYjPuPu8WSR9rl/Bipy+Yr8S7v?= =?us-ascii?Q?oUfdGPt8s+Znz2oU5GFwO6/kL4jqonMPZ8c7yWVUSwJCRXzBpN/cyV/6qJyr?= =?us-ascii?Q?f5/jGctkTlqT4ay+vcNuAxsc/4hxcOkB6cOukLev9H8Bxxe2IW2zypdGoACH?= =?us-ascii?Q?Y/gKP0oMRCftILI9O1euGIML82p9l/iU0EtAhOkYF4ZwbILu+qMFIT3Eu2Gs?= =?us-ascii?Q?y4/x8ER3F9PccESXK5aTWRkimrbveH+qzxgFTrMgIfVINVGqW4aeIGAveFc2?= =?us-ascii?Q?iHhkwFAQECMgFPRBK70sfSjC/RTgVFBEv5LQS3bWgDArOoSG76rHl7gvFC8g?= =?us-ascii?Q?RZ05gx4eOkrDVbcoi53ckmxZO98I4YAxSYkK0FJPRGwcQLL7nTDGrOdBGkWw?= =?us-ascii?Q?7LNjnohjxlkhHtpBUTsPe7QMuhJgCfzrE5d4juZQF+nhfMDxKBqP/nJNKQJs?= =?us-ascii?Q?4gHbhzd9sk4HmitY2S9YNEr0vOKiX/J+YXiV7VS04zvq5R/Ksj+mG4yARHRa?= =?us-ascii?Q?IC+uzWFZ1ZGHVt4KoJWBAWf6SyPTG0KB/Uqno55nVSojYIUsMGF96o7W6vGc?= =?us-ascii?Q?V5akzqQuwKM4qKjxoA2C0nl0NUFwyDX/UL4ISNpKffkpl7FZKAnfWq5ZWsf5?= =?us-ascii?Q?HewK7N1+DW6fslZmeJRpbICyEfqz0dGyP3u19U0I5OiUx5el+SMXh7Dyqkwm?= =?us-ascii?Q?xvDfaVMEHT01ln/02emu05jEI/CFutT6DciYli2L3Lg3H5imWDJctIGKJ/Zv?= =?us-ascii?Q?pSkS8Yjrk2tkHiHq4aagFKhy2d6o9XecxMyX+CJ+D9jRn1cOaUcl95amInuT?= =?us-ascii?Q?myWuqcywlxumpbhGuvVZQ/1l313swXUPDEnRKvQc26I6o8WmgfVwoMsHDxpf?= =?us-ascii?Q?adkvT1ZIlQcJJrni8Ccf5cU0p90CUXLgolO1P2vHC5ZDpyU1HsRgL721vrGi?= =?us-ascii?Q?iCCOJnCwLoYJM5VJZ0jddJqR19KdP8l+9NNdTshT6Ew0naJz6mh?= x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 0962D394D2 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6029001)(376002)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(189003)(199004)(51444003)(51914003)(13464003)(6116002)(790700001)(81166006)(966005)(3846002)(7696005)(229853002)(486006)(14454004)(33656002)(25786009)(99286004)(5660300002)(76176011)(478600001)(97736004)(105586002)(186003)(6246003)(102836004)(86362001)(7736002)(110136005)(26005)(11346002)(53546011)(106356001)(476003)(446003)(6506007)(81156014)(93886005)(74316002)(256004)(14444005)(8936002)(606006)(316002)(53946003)(236005)(8676002)(2906002)(6306002)(54896002)(6436002)(9686003)(55016002)(68736007)(53936002)(2501003)(66066001)(71200400001)(71190400001)(30864003)(52536013); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR12MB3083; H:DM6PR12MB3324.namprd12.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nvidia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: AJSs3zJ+8dJlnRUI5MgG6B/xk0yHSjOtI0fTZy07ZoPeC7aau4scBUt3gt6W9m/uotuvGLHd/nxk4d3YJuQH1RUYXiQCWlR7hUkiMnGBIXfSLTWutoAWMTuSpfeVOCPXcYdlYZwHakYM4wGsJpIKCWyTLgNJOeEf9G6qjrqNhEHajJSAV6T1awHTWqbBUTYLtnDyvd90H8aVn0XovKxCQbso9DwjCbLeUu7BnK6vkdrCz5YjYwM/y+970G+q9JNhzqalX84W2jdMEbvrFFjMummSqEzLs6ifYUMIfIbt44mo+0YdRIURakSpSKsMqh4nuVvX3xuRA+cnrWHnPLCtHrlUZ3jjB52ak4cD4HIp3BBbMU0blQNlExQ8fjFIe1QteFHRe8Gtnal1lszA2HWONDBmN4aWkn4+XKR7PuoZQR8= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0d809f74-4ca6-479e-4221-08d69dd89938 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Feb 2019 23:58:12.7569 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR12MB3083 X-OriginatorOrg: Nvidia.com X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit systems X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:58:20 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eugene, Thanks for pointing that out. This is a use case we are not covering as of = now. I see two options to this: 1. Do not enable 64b DMA support in PCI based on V3 as driver does not s= upport V3 64b ADMA. This is a quick fix. 2. Enable V3 64b ADMA support to add the missing feature. This will take= maybe a day or two and can be done. Thanks Ashish From: Cohen, Eugene Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:40 PM To: Ashish Singhal ; Wu, Hao A ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Ard Biesheuvel Subject: RE: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit = systems Ashish, I think that code will still fail for our use case. We are version 3 with = 64-bit support so Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V3 =3D=3D 0 will evalua= te to FALSE. Since we are V3 Private->ControllerVersion[Slot] >=3D SD_MMC_= HC_CTRL_VER_400 will also evaluate to FALSE. Therefore Support64BitDma wil= l still be TRUE resulting in DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE being set which disables bo= unce buffering. Since no code is in place to do V3 64b DMA we will still hit the same probl= em, specifically namely that buffers that are not DMAable will be allocated= and we will still fail the check here. Until such time that V3 64b DMA support is in place I believe only the V4 b= it should be evaluated. Eugene From: Ashish Singhal > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:21 PM To: Cohen, Eugene >; Wu, Hao A >; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Ard Biesheuvel > Subject: RE: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit = systems Eugene, Thanks for the explanation. The problem is valid and is more clear to me no= w. How about we do this: Instead of: if (Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V3 =3D=3D 0 && Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V4 =3D=3D 0) { Support64BitDma =3D FALSE; } What do you think about: if ((Private->ControllerVersion[Slot] =3D=3D SD_MMC_HC_CTRL_VER_300 && Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V3 =3D=3D 0) || (Private->ControllerVersion[Slot] >=3D SD_MMC_HC_CTRL_VER_400 && Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V4 =3D=3D 0)) { Support64BitDma =3D FALSE; } With this, we would be checking 64b capability based on the version we are = using and not for something we may not be using despite of being advertised= in the controller. Thanks Ashish From: Cohen, Eugene > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 2:59 PM To: Ashish Singhal = >; Wu, Hao A >; edk2-devel@li= sts.01.org; Ard Biesheuvel > Subject: RE: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit = systems Ashish, * Right now, we disable 64b DMA Support in PCI if the controller cannot= support 64b DMA in V3 as well as V4. If either of these support 64b DMA, = we do not disable it. In the code, we set Support64BitDma to TRUE by defaul= t and change it to FALSE only if any of the controller does not support it = in V3 as well as V4. If all controllers support it in V3 or V4 we keep 64b = DMA support enabled. That is precisely the problem. An SDHC v3 controller might support 64b DMA= in V3 but not in V4 mode. The current code will leave 64b DMA support ena= bled resulting in the issuing of the PCI DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE attribute ( see= https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/ece4c1de3e7b2340d351c2054c79ea689a9= 54ed6/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/SdMmcPciHcDxe/SdMmcPciHcDxe.c#L738 ) which then = causes buffers to be allocated that cannot be DMAed. For reference look at this snippet of the NonDiscoverablePciDeviceIo driver= : https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/ece4c1de3e7b2340d351c2054c79ea689a= 954ed6/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverablePciD= eviceIo.c#L622 and you can see that bounce buffering will only occur if DUA= L_ADDRESS_CYCLE is clear. So since we do not have V3 64b DMA (96-bit descriptor) support in place we = must not allow the DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE attribute to be set or we will fail w= ith this check: https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/ece4c1de3e7b2340d351= c2054c79ea689a954ed6/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/SdMmcPciHcDxe/SdMmcPciHci.c#L1426 I've added Ard who updated the driver with DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE support. Eugene From: Ashish Singhal > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 2:28 PM To: Cohen, Eugene >; Wu, Hao A >; edk2-devel@lists.01.org Subject: RE: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit = systems Eugene, We do not have support for V4 64b DMA right now but it can be added later i= f needed. I am trying to understand the reason behind changing the check fr= om AND to OR. Right now, we disable 64b DMA Support in PCI if the controlle= r cannot support 64b DMA in V3 as well as V4. If either of these support 64= b DMA, we do not disable it. In the code, we set Support64BitDma to TRUE by= default and change it to FALSE only if any of the controller does not supp= ort it in V3 as well as V4. If all controllers support it in V3 or V4 we ke= ep 64b DMA support enabled. // // Enable 64-bit DMA support in the PCI layer if this controller // supports it. // if (Support64BitDma) { Status =3D PciIo->Attributes ( PciIo, EfiPciIoAttributeOperationEnable, EFI_PCI_IO_ATTRIBUTE_DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE, NULL ); if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) { DEBUG ((DEBUG_WARN, "SdMmcPciHcDriverBindingStart: failed to enable 6= 4-bit DMA (%r)\n", Status)); } } Thanks Ashish From: Cohen, Eugene > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 12:56 PM To: Ashish Singhal = >; Wu, Hao A >; edk2-devel@li= sts.01.org Subject: RE: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit = systems Ashish, * With my change, if any of the controller did not support 64b DMA in V= 3 as well as V4 capability, we are not enabling it in PCI layer. The logic is: if (Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V3 =3D=3D 0 && Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V4 =3D=3D 0) { Support64BitDma =3D FALSE; } which means that for a SDHC v3 controller you have SysBus64V3=3D1 and SysBu= s64V4=3D0 the FALSE assignment is never done - this is not correct. Perhap= s you intended an OR instead of an AND? Either way changing this to an || = or using my patch is the same logical result because a V3 controller will u= se 32-bit DMA and V4 controller will use 64-bit DMA (a V4 controller should= have the V3 bit set). I really saw no reason to be checking the V3 bit si= nce the driver was unprepared to do V3 64-bit DMA operations anyways. Eugene From: Ashish Singhal > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 12:15 PM To: Cohen, Eugene >; Wu, Hao A >; edk2-devel@lists.01.org Subject: RE: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit = systems Hello Eugene, My patch enabled support for SDHC 4.0 and above in general including suppor= t for 64b ADMA descriptor. The check for V3 capability for 64b DMA was alre= ady there and similar check was implemented for V4 capability for 64b DMA. = Earlier, if any of the V3 controller did not support 64b DMA, we were not e= nabling it in PCI layer. With my change, if any of the controller did not s= upport 64b DMA in V3 as well as V4 capability, we are not enabling it in PC= I layer. This check in my opinion is better because we only disable 64b DMA PCI supp= ort when both V3 and V4 have it disabled. Thanks Ashish -----Original Message----- From: Cohen, Eugene > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:24 AM To: Wu, Hao A >; edk2-devel@l= ists.01.org Cc: Ashish Singhal = > Subject: RE: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit = systems Hao, > I remember the commit b5547b9ce97e80c3127682a2a5d4b9bd14af353e from > Ashish only handles the controllers with version greater or equal to 4.00= . Right - that commit added support for SDHC 4.0 and above. The original driv= er supported SDHC 3.0 albeit only with SDMA and 32-bit ADMA support. With that commit two descriptor types are supported the 32-bit ADMA descrip= tor (SD_MMC_HC_ADMA_32_DESC_LINE which is 64-bits in size) and the V4 64-bi= t ADMA descriptor (SD_MMC_HC_ADMA_64_DESC_LINE which is 128-bits in size). However the commit mistakenly added a check for the V3 capability for 64-bi= t DMA and used it to set the PCI DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE attributre which then d= oes not the 32-bit compatible bounce buffer mechanism. Later, when we attem= pt an ADMA data transfer we hit an ASSERT because the PCI DMA subsystem is = not using bounce buffers to provide 32-bit DMA compatible memory. So the pa= tch I submitted simply removes the unnecessary check of the V3 64-bit DMA c= apability check so the PCI DUAL_ADDRESS_CYCLE attribute is not set allowing= 32-bit DMA to succeed on these platforms. > And the ADMA2 (96-bit Descriptor) mode for V3 controllers is selected > by setting the 'DMA Select' filed in the Host Control 1 Register to > 11b. But the currently behavior of the driver is setting the field to > 10b, which I think will not switch to the ADMA2 (96-bit Descriptor) mode = for V3. Correct, right now for a V3 controller only 32-bit DMA is supported. An enh= ancement for V3 64-bit ADMA would improve performance on controllers that s= upport that mode by eliminating the bounce buffer and associated memory cop= ies. I think we should file a BZ for SD HCI V3 64-bit ADMA support - if you= agree I would be happy to do that. I should point out that we have done extensive testing of this change on ou= r host controller. Thanks, Eugene --- From: Wu, Hao A > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 8:25 PM To: Cohen, Eugene >; edk2-devel@lists.0= 1.org Cc: Ashish Singhal = > Subject: RE: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC v3 64-bit = systems Loop Ashish in. Some comments below. > -----Original Message----- > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of > Cohen, Eugene > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 6:59 PM > To: mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Wu, Hao A > Subject: [edk2] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: Fix DMA on SDHC > v3 64-bit systems > > The SdMmcPciHcDriverBindingStart function was checking two different > capability bits in determining whether 64-bit DMA modes were > supported, one mode is defined in the SDHC version > 3 specification (using 96-bit descriptors) and another is defined in > the SDHC version 4 specification (using 128-bit descriptors). Since > the currently implementation of 64-bit > ADMA2 only supports the SDHC version 4 implementation it is incorrect > to check the V3 64-bit capability bit since this will activate V4 > ADMA2 on V3 controllers. I remember the commit b5547b9ce97e80c3127682a2a5d4b9bd14af353e from Ashish = only handles the controllers with version greater or equal to 4.00. And the ADMA2 (96-bit Descriptor) mode for V3 controllers is selected by se= tting the 'DMA Select' filed in the Host Control 1 Register to 11b. But the= currently behavior of the driver is setting the field to 10b, which I thin= k will not switch to the ADMA2 (96-bit Descriptor) mode for V3. Maybe there is something I miss here. Could you help to provide some more d= etail on the issue you met? Thanks. Best Regards, Hao Wu > > Cc: Hao Wu > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 > Signed-off-by: Eugene Cohen > --- > MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/SdMmcPciHcDxe/SdMmcPciHcDxe.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/SdMmcPciHcDxe/SdMmcPciHcDxe.c > b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/SdMmcPciHcDxe/SdMmcPciHcDxe.c > index b474f8d..5bc91c5 100644 > --- a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/SdMmcPciHcDxe/SdMmcPciHcDxe.c > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/SdMmcPciHcDxe/SdMmcPciHcDxe.c > @@ -666,8 +666,7 @@ SdMmcPciHcDriverBindingStart ( // If any of the > slots does not support 64b system bus // do not enable 64b DMA in the > PCI layer. > // > - if (Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V3 =3D=3D 0 && > - Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V4 =3D=3D 0) { > + if (Private->Capability[Slot].SysBus64V4 =3D=3D 0) { > Support64BitDma =3D FALSE; > } > > -- > 2.7.4 > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may= contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distr= ibution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the se= nder by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --------