On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:55 AM Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > .../reserved-memory/dma_heap_chunk.yaml | 56 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/dma_heap_chunk.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/dma_heap_chunk.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/dma_heap_chunk.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..00db0ae6af61 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/dma_heap_chunk.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/reserved-memory/dma_heap_chunk.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Device tree binding for chunk heap on DMA HEAP FRAMEWORK > + > +description: | > + The DMA chunk heap is backed by the Contiguous Memory Allocator (CMA) and > + supports bulk allocation of fixed size pages. > + > +maintainers: > + - Hyesoo Yu <hyesoo.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > + - John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> > + - Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> > + - Hridya Valsaraju<hridya@xxxxxxxxxx> > + > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + enum: > + - dma_heap,chunk > + > + chunk-order: > + description: | > + order of pages that will get allocated from the chunk DMA heap. > + maxItems: 1 > + > + size: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + alignment: > + maxItems: 1 > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - size > + - alignment > + - chunk-order > + > +additionalProperties: false > + > +examples: > + - | > + reserved-memory { > + #address-cells = <2>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + > + chunk_memory: chunk_memory { > + compatible = "dma_heap,chunk"; > + size = <0x3000000>; Hey Minchan, Looking closer here, would it make more sense to document the "reg = <>" parameter here as well instead of just "size = <>"? That way the address of the region could be explicitly specified (for instance, to ensure the CMA region created is 32bit addressable). And more practically, trying to satisfy the base address alignment checks in the final patch when its set dynamically may require a fair amount of luck - I couldn't manage it in my own testing on the hikey960 w/o resorting to reg= :) It does look like the RESERVEDMEM_OF_DECLARE() logic already supports this, so it's likely just a matter of documenting it here? thanks -john
