amdgpu driver fails to initialize on ppc64le in 7.0-rc1 and newer

[Ritesh Harjani (IBM)]

Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz> writes:

> Hi Ritesh,
>
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 23:12:16 +0530
> Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gaurav Batra <gbatra at linux.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Hello Ritesh
>> >
>> > I think, what you are proposing to add dev->bus_dma_limit in the check 
>> > might work. In the case of PowerNV, this is not set, but 
>> > dev->dma_ops_bypass is set. So, for PowerNV, it will fall back to how it 
>> > was before.
>> >
>> > Also, since these both are set in LPAR mode, the current patch as-is 
>> > will work.
>> >
>> > Dan, can you please try Ritesh proposed fix on your PowerNV box? I am 
>> > not able to lay my hands on a PowerNV box yet.
>> >
>> 
>> It would be this diff then. Note, I have only compile tested it.
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/dma-iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/dma-iommu.c
>> index 73e10bd4d56d..8b4de508d2eb 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/dma-iommu.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/dma-iommu.c
>> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ bool arch_dma_unmap_sg_direct(struct device *dev, struct scatterlist *sg,
>>  }
>>  bool arch_dma_alloc_direct(struct device *dev)
>>  {
>> -       if (dev->dma_ops_bypass)
>> +       if (dev->dma_ops_bypass && dev->bus_dma_limit)
>>                 return true;
>> 
>>         return false;
>> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ bool arch_dma_alloc_direct(struct device *dev)
>> 
>>  bool arch_dma_free_direct(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t dma_handle)
>>  {
>> -       if (!dev->dma_ops_bypass)
>> +       if (!dev->dma_ops_bypass || !dev->bus_dma_limit)
>>                 return false;
>> 
>>         return is_direct_handle(dev, dma_handle);
>
> this seems to fix the amdgpu initialization, full kernel log available
> as https://fedora.danny.cz/tmp/kernel-7.0-rc5.log
>
> Tested-by: Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz>
>

Thanks a lot Dan!

@Gaurav,
In that case, please feel free to take the diff and submit an official
patch (if you think this looks good for all cases). You might want to
test your previous usecase once, so that we don't see any new surprises
there :)

-ritesh