On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:59:38AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:10:58AM +0100, Geoff Levand wrote: > >> Device tree regions described by /memreserve/ entries are not available in > >> /proc/device-tree, and hence are not available to user space utilities that use > >> /proc/device-tree. In order for these regions to be available, convert any > >> arm64 DTS files using /memreserve/ entries to use reserved-memory nodes. > > > > The limitation here is in the kernel (and a partially in userspace), so > > modifying the dts files is a workaround rather than a fix. > > > > It's perfectly valid for people to remain using /memreserve/, so this > > isn't sufficient. There are also existing DTBs using /memreserve/ which > > we can't rely on being modified to use reserved-memory. > > > > I think we need to expose memreserves to userspace somehow, potentially > > along with other DTB header fields. Grant, ideas? > > Yes, I suggested the same thing to Geoff in a separate thread. Here's > what I wrote: > > >> Geoff Levand wrote: > >>> I did some work on this and I think we just need to convert all the > >>> arm64 dts from /memreserve/ to reserved-memory nodes and update the > >>> arm64 booting.txt to specify using reserved-memory. I'll prepare a > >>> patch for it. > >> > >> I don't think that is going to be entirely sufficient. There will be > >> platforms that don't get converted over, and this is a generic problem > >> that covers all architectures using DT, not just aarch64. The solution > >> probably needs to include exposing the /memreserve/ sections to > >> userspace. I can see two ways to do this: > >> > >> 1) Create a new property in /sysfs with all the memreserve sctions > >> 2) Live-modify the device tree to put the memreserve data into a node > >> at boot time. > >> > >> Option 2 is probably the most generic solution, but it will require > >> some care to make sure there aren't any overlaps if a reserved-memory > >> node already exists. I would prefer the former currently. While I currently believe that modifying the tree is something we're going to have to do for stateful properties, it's not someting I want to have to do unless absolutely necessary. > >> > >> g. > > > > For reference, here is an old conversation about this exact thing. > > Reading through it, the opinions I expressed then don't necessarily > > match what I think now. I still don't think it is a good idea to > > expose the physical address of the old .dtb blob, but I do agree that > > the memreserve sections need to be exposed. > > > > https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2010-July/083993.html Another option would be to expose the original DTB as a (read-only) binary file somewhere. That might interact poorly with live tree modification in future, however. Mark.
