Hello, On 8/20/2013 6:35 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/20/2013 04:57 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > Hello, > > On 8/20/2013 12:17 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 08/19/2013 04:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> > Hi Stephen, >> > >> > On Monday 19 of August 2013 15:49:20 Stephen Warren wrote: >> >> On 08/19/2013 09:04 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >> >>> This patch adds device tree support for contiguous and reserved >> memory >> >>> regions defined in device tree. >> >>> >> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory.txt >> >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory.txt >> >>> >> >>> +*** Reserved memory regions *** >> >>> + >> >>> +In /memory/reserved-memory node one can create additional nodes >> >> >> >> s/additional/child/ or s/additional/sub/ would make it clearer >> where the >> >> "additional" nodes should be placed. >> >> >> >>> +compatible: "linux,contiguous-memory-region" - enables binding >> > of >> >>> this >> >>> + region to Contiguous Memory Allocator (special region for >> >>> + contiguous memory allocations, shared with movable system >> >>> + memory, Linux kernel-specific), alternatively if >> >>> + "reserved-memory-region" - compatibility is defined, given >> >>> + region is assigned for exclusive usage for by the >> > respective >> >>> + devices >> >> >> >> "alternatively" makes it sound like the two compatible values are >> >> mutually-exclusive. Perhaps make this a list, like: >> >> >> >> ---------- >> >> compatible: One or more of: >> >> >> >> - "linux,contiguous-memory-region" - enables binding of this >> >> region to Contiguous Memory Allocator (special region for >> >> contiguous memory allocations, shared with movable system >> >> memory, Linux kernel-specific). >> >> - "reserved-memory-region" - compatibility is defined, given >> >> region is assigned for exclusive usage for by the respective >> >> devices. >> >> ---------- >> >> >> >> "linux,contiguous-memory-region" is already long enough, but I'd >> >> slightly bikeshed towards >> "linux,contiguous-memory-allocator-region", or >> >> perhaps "linux,cma-region" since it's not really describing whether >> the >> >> memory is contiguous (at the level of /memory, each chunk of memory is >> >> contiguous...) >> > >> > I'm not really sure if we need the "linux" prefix for >> "contiguous-memory- >> > region". The concept of contiguous memory region is rather OS >> independent >> > and tells us that memory allocated from this region will be contiguous. >> > IMHO any OS is free to implement its own contiguous memory allocation >> > method, without being limited to Linux CMA. >> > >> > Keep in mind that rationale behind those contiguous regions was that >> there >> > are devices that require buffers contiguous in memory to operate >> > correctly. >> > >> > But this is just nitpicking and I don't really have any strong >> opinion on >> > this. >> > >> >>> +*** Device node's properties *** >> >>> + >> >>> +Once regions in the /memory/reserved-memory node have been defined, >> >>> they +can be assigned to device nodes to enable respective device >> >>> drivers to +access them. The following properties are defined: >> >>> + >> >>> +memory-region = <&phandle_to_defined_region>; >> >> >> >> I think the naming of that property should more obviously match this >> >> binding and/or compatible value; perhaps cma-region or >> >> contiguous-memory-region? >> > >> > This property is not CMA-specific. Any memory region can be given using >> > the memory-region property and used to allocate buffers for particular >> > device. >> >> OK, that makes sense. >> >> What I'm looking for is some way to make it obvious that when you see a >> "memory-region" property in a node, you go look at the "memory.txt" >> rather than the DT binding for the node where that property appears. >> Right now, it doesn't seem that obvious to me. >> >> I think the real issue here is that my brief reading of memory.txt >> implies that arbitrary device nodes can include the memory-region >> property without the node's own binding having to document it; the >> property name is essentially "forced into" all other bindings. >> >> I think instead, memory.txt should say: >> >> ---------- >> ** Device node's properties *** >> >> Once regions in the /memory/reserved-memory node have been defined, they >> may be referenced by other device nodes. Bindings that wish to reference >> memory regions should explicitly document their use of the following >> property: >> >> memory-region = <&phandle_to_defined_region>; >> >> This property indicates that the device driver should use the memory >> region pointed by the given phandle. >> ---------- >> >> Also, what if a device needs multiple separate memory regions? Perhaps a >> GPU is forced to allocate displayable surfaces from addresses 0..32M and >> textures/off-screen-render-targets from 256M..384M or something whacky >> like that. In that case, we could either: >> >> a) Adjust memory.txt to allow multiple entries in memory-regions, and >> add an associated memory-region-names property. >> >> or: >> >> b) Adjust memory.txt not to mention any specific property names, but >> simply mention that other DT nodes can refer to define memory regions by >> phandle, and leave it up to individual bindings to define which property >> they use to reference the memory regions, perhaps with memory.txt >> providing a recommendation of memory-region for the simple case, but >> perhaps also allowing a custom case, e.g.: >> >> display-memory-region = <&phandl1e1>; >> texture-memory-region = <&phahndle2>; > > Support for multiple regions is something that need to be discussed > separately. In case of Exynos hardware it is also related to iommu bindings > and configuration, because each busmuster on the internal memory bus has > separate iommu controller. Having each busmaster defined as a separate > node, > enables to put there the associated memory region and/or iommu > controller as > well as dma window properties (in case of limited dma window). > > However right now I would like to focus on the simple case (1 device, > 1 memory region) and define bindings which can be extended later. > I hope that my current proposal covers this (I will send updated binding > documentation asap) and the initial support for reserved memory can be > merged to -next soon. I don't believe that's a good approach unless you have at least a partial idea of how the current bindings will be extended to support multiple memory regions. Without a clear idea how that will eventually work, you run a real risk of not being able to extend the bindings in a 100% backwards-compatible way, and hence wishing to break DT ABI.
Both already proposed approaches for extending them to support multiple memory regions are compatible with the 'single memory region' approach defined in my patches. Adding additional property with region names is probably the simplest way from binding perspective, while adding additional child nodes for each bus master or memory interface gives much more flexibility in describing hardware properties. Besides memory region, one can assign iommu controller or dma window properties to each such node. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski Samsung R&D Institute Poland -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
