Hi Rob, Ard, On Wed, 6 Sept 2023 at 08:34, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 4:44 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 01:18, Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The Devicetree specification skips over handling of a logical view of > > > the memory map, pointing users to the UEFI specification. > > > > > > It is common to split firmware into 'Platform Init', which does the > > > initial hardware setup and a "Payload" which selects the OS to be booted. > > > Thus an handover interface is required between these two pieces. > > > > > > Where UEFI boot-time services are not available, but UEFI firmware is > > > present on either side of this interface, information about memory usage > > > and attributes must be presented to the "Payload" in some form. > > > > > > > I don't think the UEFI references are needed or helpful here. > > > > > This aims to provide an small schema addition for this mapping. > > > > > > For now, no attempt is made to create an exhaustive binding, so there are > > > some example types listed. More can be added later. > > > > > > The compatible string is not included, since the node name is enough to > > > indicate the purpose of a node, as per the existing reserved-memory > > > schema. > > Node names reflect the 'class', but not what's specifically in the > node. So really, all reserved-memory nodes should have the same name, > but that ship already sailed for existing users. 'compatible' is the > right thing here. As to what the node name should be, well, we haven't > defined that. I think we just used 'memory' on some platforms. OK > > > > This binding does not include a binding for the memory 'attribute' > > > property, defined by EFI_BOOT_SERVICES.GetMemoryMap(). It may be useful > > > to have that as well, but perhaps not as a bit mask. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > - Drop the memory-map node (should have done that in v4) > > > - Tidy up schema a bit > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > - Make use of the reserved-memory node instead of creating a new one > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - Reword commit message again > > > - cc a lot more people, from the FFI patch > > > - Split out the attributes into the /memory nodes > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > - Reword commit message > > > > > > .../reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml | 53 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 dtschema/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml > > > > > > diff --git a/dtschema/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml b/dtschema/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..d1b466b > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/dtschema/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > +--- > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: Common memory reservations > > > + > > > +description: | > > > + Specifies that the reserved memory region can be used for the purpose > > > + indicated by its node name. > > > + > > > + Clients may reuse this reserved memory if they understand what it is for. > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > + > > > +allOf: > > > + - $ref: reserved-memory.yaml > > > + > > > +properties: > > > + $nodename: > > > + enum: > > > + - acpi-reclaim > > > + - acpi-nvs > > > + - boot-code > > > + - boot-data > > > + - runtime-code > > > + - runtime-data > > > + > > > > These types are used by firmware to describe the nature of certain > > memory regions to the OS. Boot code and data can be discarded, as well > > as ACPI reclaim after its contents have been consumed. Runtime code > > and data need to be mapped for runtime features to work. > > > > When one firmware phase communicates the purpose of a certain memory > > reservation to another, it is typically not limited to whether its > > needs to be preserved and when it needs to be mapped (and with which > > attributes). I'd expect a memory reservation appearing under this node > > to have a clearly defined purpose, and the subsequent phases need to > > be able to discover this information. > > > > For example, a communication buffer for secure<->non-secure > > communication or a page with spin tables used by PSCI. None of the > > proposed labels are appropriate for this, and I'd much rather have a > > compatible string or some other property that clarifies the nature in > > a more suitable way. Note that 'no-map' already exists to indicate > > that the CPU should not map this memory unless it does so for the > > specific purpose that the reservation was made for. > > I agree. I think compatible is the better approach. Some property like > 'discard' may not be sufficient information if the OS needs to consume > the region first and then discard it. Better to state exactly what's > there and then the OS can imply the rest. OK, so what sort of compatible strings? How about: "acpi-reclaim" - holds ACPI tables; memory can be reclaimed once the tables are read and no-longer needed "boot-code" - holds boot code; memory can be reclaimed once the boot phase is complete "runtime-code" - holds runtime code; memory can be reclaimed only if this code will not be used from that point etc. We can then have more specific compatibles, like: "psci-spin-table" - holds PSCI spin tables so you could do: compatible = "runtime-code", "psci-spin-table"; Regards, Simon
