On Fri 26 Aug 13:19 PDT 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote:
> Some coprocessors request fixed memory mapping for firmware execution
> and associated communication linked.
> Memory resources are defined in firmware resource table.
> Resource address different from 0x0 and 0xFFFFFFFF is considered as predefined
Do you think we're required to support both 0 and -1 for this?
> and already reserved at system level.
> In that case, remoteproc core doesn't need to perform any allocation.
> Memory region access can be managed using memremap/memunmap functions
>
> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 4 +++
> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 18f4286..0ddbb92 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -213,13 +213,25 @@ int rproc_alloc_vring(struct rproc_vdev *rvdev, int i)
> /* actual size of vring (in bytes) */
> size = PAGE_ALIGN(vring_size(rvring->len, rvring->align));
>
> - /*
> - * Allocate non-cacheable memory for the vring. In the future
> - * this call will also configure the IOMMU for us
> - */
> - va = dma_alloc_coherent(dev->parent, size, &dma, GFP_KERNEL);
> + rsc = (void *)rproc->table_ptr + rvdev->rsc_offset;
> +
> + /* check if specific memory region requested by firmware */
> + if (rsc->vring[i].da != 0 && rsc->vring[i].da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) {
I think we should convert that reserved field in the vring to a "pa";
allowing this resource to not be 1:1 mapped into the remote. And if
nothing else just to be consistent with the carveouts and devmem.
@Suman, do you have any input on this?
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
