On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:29:54 +0100, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Yes, if only because it is an define usage of the reg property. If a
> > devtree has multiple tuples in reg, then all of those tuples should be
> > treated as reserved, even if the kernel doesn't know how to use them.
> >
> > I would not do the same for size/align/alloc-ranges unless there is a
> > very specific use case that you can define. These ones are different
> > from the static regions because they aren't ever used to protect
> > something that already exists in the memory.
>
> Is there a reason why multiple regions could not be used for this
> purpose, instead of adding extra complexity of having multiple reg
> entries per region?
>
> I.e. I don't see a difference between
>
> reg1: region@00000000 {
> reg = <0x00000000 0x1000>;
> };
>
> reg2: region@10000000 {
> reg = <0x10000000 0x1000>;
> };
>
> user {
> regions = <®1>, <®2>;
> };
>
> and
>
> reg: region@00000000 {
> reg = <0x00000000 0x1000>, <0x10000000 0x1000>;
> };
>
> user {
> regions = <®>;
> };
>
> except that the former IMHO better suits the definition of memory
> region, which I see as a single contiguous range of memory and can be
> simplified to have a single reg entry per region.
My point is rather if multiple reg tuples are found in a reserved memory
node, the kernel must respect them and reserve the memory. I'm not
arguing about whether or not that makes for a good binding.
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
