Hello,
On 2016-05-25 19:11, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
Hello Marek,
On 05/24/2016 09:31 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
This patch replaces custom properties for defining reserved memory
regions with generic reserved memory bindings for MFC video codec
device.
Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
[snip]
+
+/ {
+ reserved-memory {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+ ranges;
+
+ mfc_left: region@51000000 {
+ compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
+ no-map;
+ reg = <0x51000000 0x800000>;
+ };
+
+ mfc_right: region@43000000 {
+ compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
+ no-map;
+ reg = <0x43000000 0x800000>;
+ };
+ };
I've a question probably for a follow up patch, but do you know what's a
sane default size for these? I needed to bump the mfc_left size from 8 MiB
to 16 MiB in order to decode a 480p H264 video using GStramer. So clearly
the default sizes are not that useful.
Right, the default size for the 'left' region can be increased. Frankly,
those
values (8MiB/0x43000000+ 8MiB/0x51000000) comes from my initial patches
prepared for some demo and don't have much with any real requirements. They
were copied (blindly...) by various developers without any deeper
understanding.
Probably the most sane would be to use something like this:
mfc_left: region_mfc_left {
compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
no-map;
size = <0x1000000>;
alignment = <0x100000>;
};
mfc_right: region_mfc_right {
compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
no-map;
size = <0x800000>;
alignment = <0x100000>;
};
So the region will be allocated automatically from the available memory.
This way
another nice feature of the generic reserved memory regions can be used.
The only platform which really requires MFC regions to be placed at
certain memory
offsets is Samsung S5PV210/S5PC110 (sometimes called exynos3), where
there is no
memory address interleaving and MFC device has limited memory interface,
which cannot
do 2 transactions to the same physical memory bank. However
S5PV210/S5PC110 machine
code lost support for MFC during conversion to device tree, so it is not
a problem
here.
All newer platforms (Exynos4, Exynos3250, Exynos5+) use memory
interleaving, so the
actual offset of memory bank has no influence on the physical memory bank.
+};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-origen.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-origen.dts
index ad7394c..f5e4eb2 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-origen.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-origen.dts
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include "exynos4210.dtsi"
#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
#include <dt-bindings/input/input.h>
+#include "exynos-mfc-reserved-memory.dtsi"
/ {
model = "Insignal Origen evaluation board based on Exynos4210";
@@ -288,8 +289,7 @@
};
&mfc {
- samsung,mfc-r = <0x43000000 0x800000>;
- samsung,mfc-l = <0x51000000 0x800000>;
+ memory-region = <&mfc_left>, <&mfc_right>;
status = "okay";
I wonder if shouldn't be better to include the exynos-mfc-reserved-memory.dtsi
on each SoC dtsi and set the memory-regions in the MFC node instead of doing
it on each DTS, and let DTS to just replace with its own memory regions if the
default sizes are not suitable for them.
I don't have strong opinion on this. Maybe it would make more sense to
move the
following entry:
&mfc {
memory-region = <&mfc_left>, <&mfc_right>;
};
also to the exynos-mfc-reserved-memory.dtsi ? So board will just include
it if
it want to use MFC device with reserved memory regions.
Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
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
