> -----Original Message----- > From: glikely@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:glikely@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Grant > Likely > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 8:46 PM > To: Wang, Yalin > Cc: robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pawel.moll@xxxxxxx; > mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [RFC] fdt:free the fdt reserved memory > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Wang, Yalin <Yalin.Wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Grant Likely [mailto:glikely@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Grant > >> Likely > >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:05 PM > >> To: Wang, Yalin; 'robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; > >> 'pawel.moll@xxxxxxx'; 'mark.rutland@xxxxxxx'; > >> 'ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' > >> Subject: RE: [RFC] fdt:free the fdt reserved memory > >> > >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:56:11 +0800 > >> , "Wang, Yalin" <Yalin.Wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Grant Likely [mailto:glikely@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > >> > > Grant Likely > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:45 PM > >> > > To: Wang, Yalin; 'robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx'; > >> > > 'devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'pawel.moll@xxxxxxx'; > >> > > 'mark.rutland@xxxxxxx'; 'ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' > >> > > Subject: Re: [RFC] fdt:free the fdt reserved memory > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:25:12 +0800, "Wang, Yalin" > >> > > <Yalin.Wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > This patch make some change to unflatten_dt_node(), make sure > >> > > > the device_node don't reference to fdt raw blob memory, so that > >> > > > we can free the raw blob reserved memory after initcalls. > >> > > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Yalin Wang <yalin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > > >> > > Do you have any measurements showing a change in available memory > >> > > before and after the patch? > >> > > > >> > Does anyone have a look at this patch? > >> > It can save 12K on my platform, > >> > My dtb is 164K > >> > >> Yes, I've been thinking about this one. Unfortunately there is a > >> conflict with another feature that I'm merging for v3.19. See commit > >> 08d53aa5, > >> "of/fdt: export fdt blob as /sys/firmware/fdt" in linux-next. > >> That commit requires the original blob to be kept around. > >> > >> In order to free the original dtb, the /sys/firmware/fdt feature will > >> need to be changed to let it be configured out. All things > >> considered, that is probably the right thing to do, but doing so > >> increases the memory load for the platforms that want > >> /sys/firmware/fdt. I'd like to see what the impact would be on the > >> code to switch to this method when /sys/firmware/fdt is configured out. > >> > > Oh, I understand, > > If enable /sys/firmware/fdt feature patch, doesn't need My patch is > > fine, So need 2 method to unflatten dtb blob. > > I don't want to duplicate the function. It would instead need to be a build > time configuration to the function that if /sys/firmware/fdt is enabled, > then copying the property on unflatten is disabled. Yeah, seems a better way if you do like this. BRs -- 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
