On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:51:48PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > First off, I have handed maintainership off to Michael S. Tsirkin, so > > his word is now law. > > > > That said... there's nothing fundamentally *wrong* with this, but it's > > not how standard virtio works. We decided some time ago that as we're > > paravirtualized, we would not be doing address mapping. > > > > rpmsg uses virtio, but it's with a twist: they're not talking to a > > host. Thus my preference, in order, would be: > > > > 1) Don't use non-kmalloc addresses. > > 2) If that's not possible, call these _dma interfaces _rpmsg instead, > > so normal virtio users don't get confused and try to use them. > > Thanks Rusty, > > That was helpful, I'll see if I can do something in line with nr 2. > > AFAICT, #1 will be hard. The remote-processor would have to be > cache-coherent and share memory address-space view with the master > CPU. This is not the common case for remoteproc (unlike when virtio > communication flows between host and guest on the same CPU or SMP system). > Ohad, do you have any thoughts on this? rpmsg is allocating a large chunk (256KB) of physically-contiguous CMA memory today, which is exposed via the dma_alloc_coherent API (and set up in advance by platform-specific code), so if #2 above is acceptable, it would be easier, yeah. Thanks, Ohad. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
