On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> This reverts commit 35da60941e44dbf57868e67686dd24cc1a33125a. >>>> --- >>>> WTF! >>>> >>>> I don't recall acking this nor have my comments (Arnd's really) been >>>> addressed[1]. This should not have been merged yet. >>> >>> The conversation seemed to me to describe an alternative that could be >>> moved to, but that it was going to need more work. In the meantime, >>> these are the DT bindings used in real devices already. It seemed >>> clear to me that reducing the delta now and improving the >>> implementation in the future was the right thing to do in this case. I >>> didn't think your comments were a hard NAK, but rather a "we should do >>> this in the future", and I added it as a TODO for the pstore tree. >>> >>> Is a revert really justified here? This doesn't break anything (quite >>> the opposite, actually). >> >> Yes. Bindings are an ABI, so they can't evolve other than get >> additional properties. > > Okay. I still think that from a pragmatic perspective, this isn't > different from reality: Android carries a version of this, so that ABI > already "exists", but, regardless, I misunderstood the intensity of > your concerns. :) > >> I'm keen to have this in too because I know there are lots of users >> (extract a DT from a Calxeda system ;)). It's not really that far off >> (drop memory-region and define the location in /reserved-memory) I >> think. So send a follow-up for 4.8 and then it doesn't need a revert. > > Okay, I'll see what I can figure out. Confusing: ARM doesn't show reserved memblocks in /proc/iomem. I spent way too much time thinking my .dts was wrong. :( Booting with "memblock=debug" helped... So, the proposed DT looks like this: {/ reserved-memory { ramoops@78000000 { There's no "compatible" entry in "reserved-memory", so it's skipped for probing, as far as I can tell. Which brings me back to your original email where you said: > This will in addition need an > of_platform_populate call on the /reserved-memory node to get the > platform device created. Where should I add the of_platform_populate() call? All the reserved memory logic is way too early during FDT, so right now I have it working by adding it to init_machine_late() which feels very ugly (and a bit too late: I'd like it as early as possible). :P It seems like it should go right after the top-level call to of_platform_populate(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL), but that seems to be done on a per-board basis? I can't figure it out. -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS & Brillo Security -- 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