Hi,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:24 AM Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue 22 Jan 10:58 PST 2019, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2019-01-21 21:51:03)
> > > @@ -103,10 +138,30 @@
> > > no-map;
> > > };
> > >
> > > + venus_mem: memory@95800000 {
> > > + reg = <0 0x95800000 0 0x500000>;
> > > + no-map;
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + cdsp_mem: memory@95d00000 {
> > > + reg = <0 0x95d00000 0 0x800000>;
> > > + no-map;
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > mba_region: memory@96500000 {
> > > reg = <0 0x96500000 0 0x200000>;
> > > no-map;
> > > };
> > > +
> > > + slpi_mem: memory@96700000 {
> > > + reg = <0 0x96700000 0 0x1400000>;
> > > + no-map;
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + spss_mem: memory@97b00000 {
> > > + reg = <0 0x97b00000 0 0x100000>;
> > > + no-map;
> > > + };
> > > };
> > >
> >
> > What's the plan if certain configurations don't use all these carveouts?
> > Can we mark the reservation nodes as status = "disabled", or the reverse
> > and mark them as status = "ok" in all boards, and then reclaim the
> > memory for peripherals we don't care to use?
> >
>
> The code path that picks these up does look for "status", so I suggest
> that we leave them all enabled in the platform dtsi and then let the
> device's reclaim them as needed.
Does that mean we should add labels for all of the sub-nodes so that
boards can easily mark them "disabled"?
-Doug
