On 9/14/2022 6:21 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 2:57 PM Doug Berger <opendmb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MOTIVATION:
Some Broadcom devices (e.g. 7445, 7278) contain multiple memory
controllers with each mapped in a different address range within
a Uniform Memory Architecture. Some users of these systems have
expressed the desire to locate ZONE_MOVABLE memory on each
memory controller to allow user space intensive processing to
make better use of the additional memory bandwidth.
Unfortunately, the historical monotonic layout of zones would
mean that if the lowest addressed memory controller contains
ZONE_MOVABLE memory then all of the memory available from
memory controllers at higher addresses must also be in the
ZONE_MOVABLE zone. This would force all kernel memory accesses
onto the lowest addressed memory controller and significantly
reduce the amount of memory available for non-movable
allocations.
Why are you sending kernel patches to the Devicetree specification list?
Rob
My apologies if this is a problem. No offense was intended.
My process has been to run my patches through get_maintainers.pl to get
the list of addresses to copy on submissions and my
0016-dt-bindings-reserved-memory-introduce-designated-mov.patch
solicited the
'- <devicetree-spec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>' address.
My preference when reviewing is to receive an entire patch set to
understand the context of an individual commit, but I can certainly
understand that others may have different preferences.
It was my understanding that the Devicetree specification list was part
of the kernel (e.g. @vger.kernel.org) and would be willing to receive
patches that might be of relevance to it.
I am inexperienced with yaml and devicetree processes in general so I
have tried to lean on the examples of other reserved-memory node
bindings for help.
There is much to learn and I am happy to modify my process to better
accommodate your needs.
Regards,
Doug
