On 08/19/2013 04:40 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Monday 19 of August 2013 16:27:14 Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/19/2013 04:24 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Monday 19 of August 2013 16:17:30 Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/19/2013 04:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Monday 19 of August 2013 15:49:20 Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/19/2013 09:04 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > This patch adds device tree support for contiguous and reserved > memory regions defined in device tree. > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory.txt > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory.txt
...
Also, what if a device needs multiple separate memory regions? Perhaps a GPU is forced to allocate displayable surfaces from addresses 0..32M and textures/off-screen-render-targets from 256M..384M or something whacky like that. In that case, we could either:
a) Adjust memory.txt to allow multiple entries in memory-regions, and add an associated memory-region-names property.
or:
b) Adjust memory.txt not to mention any specific property names, but simply mention that other DT nodes can refer to define memory regions by phandle, and leave it up to individual bindings to define which property they use to reference the memory regions, perhaps with memory.txt providing a recommendation of memory-region for the simple case, but perhaps also allowing a custom case, e.g.:
display-memory-region = <&phandl1e1>; texture-memory-region = <&phahndle2>;
Well, such setup simply cannot be handled by Linux today, as one
...
I agree that the device tree should be able to describe such configurations,
...
Well, if it's just about modifying the binding to support such cases, but without actually adding support for them in Linux, then I guess it's fine.
Yes. I don't care so much if the SW won't work (yet?), but I want to make sure the binding isn't going to need semantic changes.