[PATCH v6 3/4] drivers: of: add initialization code for dma reserved memory

[Stephen Warren]

On 08/20/2013 04:57 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 8/20/2013 12:17 AM, 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
>> >>>
>> >>> +*** Reserved memory regions ***
>> >>> +
>> >>> +In /memory/reserved-memory node one can create additional nodes
>> >>
>> >> s/additional/child/ or s/additional/sub/ would make it clearer
>> where the
>> >> "additional" nodes should be placed.
>> >>
>> >>> +compatible:    "linux,contiguous-memory-region" - enables binding
>> > of
>> >>> this
>> >>> +        region to Contiguous Memory Allocator (special region for
>> >>> +        contiguous memory allocations, shared with movable system
>> >>> +        memory, Linux kernel-specific), alternatively if
>> >>> +        "reserved-memory-region" - compatibility is defined, given
>> >>> +        region is assigned for exclusive usage for by the
>> > respective
>> >>> +        devices
>> >>
>> >> "alternatively" makes it sound like the two compatible values are
>> >> mutually-exclusive. Perhaps make this a list, like:
>> >>
>> >> ----------
>> >> compatible: One or more of:
>> >>
>> >>     - "linux,contiguous-memory-region" - enables binding of this
>> >>       region to Contiguous Memory Allocator (special region for
>> >>       contiguous memory allocations, shared with movable system
>> >>       memory, Linux kernel-specific).
>> >>     - "reserved-memory-region" - compatibility is defined, given
>> >>       region is assigned for exclusive usage for by the respective
>> >>       devices.
>> >> ----------
>> >>
>> >> "linux,contiguous-memory-region" is already long enough, but I'd
>> >> slightly bikeshed towards
>> "linux,contiguous-memory-allocator-region", or
>> >> perhaps "linux,cma-region" since it's not really describing whether
>> the
>> >> memory is contiguous (at the level of /memory, each chunk of memory is
>> >> contiguous...)
>> >
>> > I'm not really sure if we need the "linux" prefix for
>> "contiguous-memory-
>> > region". The concept of contiguous memory region is rather OS
>> independent
>> > and tells us that memory allocated from this region will be contiguous.
>> > IMHO any OS is free to implement its own contiguous memory allocation
>> > method, without being limited to Linux CMA.
>> >
>> > Keep in mind that rationale behind those contiguous regions was that
>> there
>> > are devices that require buffers contiguous in memory to operate
>> > correctly.
>> >
>> > But this is just nitpicking and I don't really have any strong
>> opinion on
>> > this.
>> >
>> >>> +*** Device node's properties ***
>> >>> +
>> >>> +Once regions in the /memory/reserved-memory node have been defined,
>> >>> they +can be assigned to device nodes to enable respective device
>> >>> drivers to +access them. The following properties are defined:
>> >>> +
>> >>> +memory-region = <&phandle_to_defined_region>;
>> >>
>> >> I think the naming of that property should more obviously match this
>> >> binding and/or compatible value; perhaps cma-region or
>> >> contiguous-memory-region?
>> >
>> > This property is not CMA-specific. Any memory region can be given using
>> > the memory-region property and used to allocate buffers for particular
>> > device.
>>
>> OK, that makes sense.
>>
>> What I'm looking for is some way to make it obvious that when you see a
>> "memory-region" property in a node, you go look at the "memory.txt"
>> rather than the DT binding for the node where that property appears.
>> Right now, it doesn't seem that obvious to me.
>>
>> I think the real issue here is that my brief reading of memory.txt
>> implies that arbitrary device nodes can include the memory-region
>> property without the node's own binding having to document it; the
>> property name is essentially "forced into" all other bindings.
>>
>> I think instead, memory.txt should say:
>>
>> ----------
>> ** Device node's properties ***
>>
>> Once regions in the /memory/reserved-memory node have been defined, they
>> may be referenced by other device nodes. Bindings that wish to reference
>> memory regions should explicitly document their use of the following
>> property:
>>
>> memory-region = <&phandle_to_defined_region>;
>>
>> This property indicates that the device driver should use the memory
>> region pointed by the given phandle.
>> ----------
>>
>> 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>;
> 
> Support for multiple regions is something that need to be discussed
> separately. In case of Exynos hardware it is also related to iommu bindings
> and configuration, because each busmuster on the internal memory bus has
> separate iommu controller. Having each busmaster defined as a separate
> node,
> enables to put there the associated memory region and/or iommu
> controller as
> well as dma window properties (in case of limited dma window).
> 
> However right now I would like to focus on the simple case (1 device,
> 1 memory region) and define bindings which can be extended later.
> I hope that my current proposal covers this (I will send updated binding
> documentation asap) and the initial support for reserved memory can be
> merged to -next soon.

I don't believe that's a good approach unless you have at least a
partial idea of how the current bindings will be extended to support
multiple memory regions.

Without a clear idea how that will eventually work, you run a real risk
of not being able to extend the bindings in a 100% backwards-compatible
way, and hence wishing to break DT ABI.