> -----Original Message----- > From: Bjorn Andersson [mailto:bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:30 AM > To: Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx> > Cc: ohad@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxx>; > benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/16] remoteproc: add memory device registering in > rproc_add_carveout > > On Thu 30 Nov 08:46 PST 2017, Loic Pallardy wrote: > > > Add the possibility to associate a memory device to > > carveout. > > > > Due to some memory mapping constraints, remoteproc related memory > > allocations should be done in a specific memory region. > > Constraint is not coming from remoteproc firmware (with defined > > device address), but from remoteproc platform driver itself. > > > > In that case, platform driver has to register a carveout region with > > memory device. Memory device will be used for carveout, vring or buffer > > allocation accorfing to its name. > > > > Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > > drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c | 2 +- > > include/linux/remoteproc.h | 3 ++- > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > index 76d54bf..2b7effb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > @@ -964,17 +964,29 @@ static int rproc_handle_carveout(struct rproc > *rproc, > > * rproc_add_carveout() - register an allocated carveout region > > * @rproc: rproc handle > > * @mem: memory entry to register > > + * @memdev: true if carveout shoult be associated to a memory device > > * > > * This function registers specified memory entry in @rproc carveouts list. > > * Specified carveout should have been allocated before registering. > > */ > > -int rproc_add_carveout(struct rproc *rproc, struct rproc_mem_entry > *mem) > > +int rproc_add_carveout(struct rproc *rproc, struct rproc_mem_entry > *mem, bool memdev) > > { > > + struct rproc_memdev *memd; > > + > > if (!rproc || !mem) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > mem->priv = (void *)CARVEOUT_EXTERNAL; > > > > + if (memdev) { > > + memd = rproc_memdev_add(rproc, mem); > > But this would likely cause the memory-region to be remapped twice, once > by the > caller and once by the dmam_declare_coherent_memory(). Yes if already mapped by driver > > > + if (IS_ERR(memd)) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + mem->memdev = memd; > > + } else { > > + mem->memdev = NULL; > > + } > > + > > list_add_tail(&mem->node, &rproc->carveouts); > > > > return 0; > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c > b/drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c > > index 1549ce8..da42ec9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/st_remoteproc.c > > @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ static int st_rproc_parse_dt(struct platform_device > *pdev) > > return -EBUSY; > > } > > > > - rproc_add_carveout(rproc, mem); > > + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, mem, false); > > So when memdev is false this should imply that "mem" has not been > remapped already. Which I think would be better captured by not > overloading the add_carveout function. > So you propose to have to different interfaces: one for memory device registry and a second for carveout registry? In that case user will do memory mapping either by its own or by using memory device registration. Regards, Loic > 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
