On Tue 22 Jan 15:10 PST 2019, Doug Anderson wrote:
> 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"?
>
That sounds reasonable, I'll dig up some labels for the unlabeled nodes
as well.
Thanks,
Bjorn
