On 12.10.2017 16:45, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 12/10/17 14:25, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 03:06:17PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> Hello Vladimir,
>>>
>>> On 12.10.2017 10:43, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>> Hello Dmitry,
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2017 11:08 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>> Add a device node for the video decoder engine found on Tegra20.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
>>>>> index 7c85f97f72ea..1b5d54b6c0cb 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
>>>>> @@ -249,6 +249,23 @@
>>>>> */
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> + vde@6001a000 {
>>>>> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-vde";
>>>>> + reg = <0x6001a000 0x3D00 /* VDE registers */
>>>>> + 0x40000400 0x3FC00>; /* IRAM region */
>>>>
>>>> this notation of a used region in IRAM is non-standard and potentially it
>>>> may lead to conflicts for IRAM resource between users.
>>>>
>>>> My proposal is to add a valid device tree node to describe an IRAM region
>>>> firstly, then reserve a subregion in it by using a new "iram" property.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The defined in DT IRAM region used by VDE isn't exactly correct, actually it
>>> should be much smaller. I don't know exactly what parts of IRAM VDE uses, for
>>> now it is just safer to assign the rest of the IRAM region to VDE.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure whether it really worthy to use a dynamic allocator for a single
>>> static allocation, but maybe it would come handy later.. Stephen / Jon /
>>> Thierry, what do you think?
>>
>> This sounds like a good idea. I agree that this currently doesn't seem
>> to be warranted, but consider what would happen if at some point we have
>> more devices requiring access to the IRAM. Spreading individual reg
>> properties all across the DT will make it very difficult to ensure they
>> don't overlap.
>>
>> Presumably the mmio-sram driver will check that pool don't overlap. Or
>> even if it doesn't it will make it a lot easier to verify because it's
>> all in the same DT node and then consumers only reference it.
>>
>> I like Vladimir's proposal. I also suspect that Rob may want us to stick
>> to a standardized way referencing such external memory.
>
> FWIW I agree. Seems like a nice approach and describes the h/w accurately.
>
Alright :)
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
