[PATCH v7 3/4] drivers: of: add initialization code for dma reserved memory

[Marek Szyprowski]

Hello,

On 9/9/2013 6:01 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:26:24 -0500, Kumar Gala <galak at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > On 8/30/2013 12:46 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:39:18 +0200, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski at samsung.com> wrote:
> > >> > +	- "reserved-memory-region" - compatibility is defined, given
> > >> > +	  region is assigned for exclusive usage for by the respective
> > >> > +	  devices.
> > >>
> > >> BTW, just so you're aware there is already a binding for marking regions
> > >> as reserved. It was recently added to arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c.
> > >> Unfortunately it doesn't look like it got documented. Search for
> > >> "reserved-ranges". However, I don't think it blocks your work here. That
> > >> binding doesn't provide any way for matching devices to reserved ranges.
> > >> It is only for telling the kernel "hands of that memory".
> > >
> > > ok, good to know.
> >
> > So I think the most generic compatible should effectively be the same
> > as 'reserved-ranges', ie this region shouldn't be touched by the
> > kernel.
> >
> > Than we can build on top of that with more specific compatibles.
> >
> > I have examples from FSL networking SoCs where we would carve out
> > memory for backing storage managed completely by the HW and Linux
> > wouldn't need to touch it, however we might have a
> > "fsl,qman-backing-store" compat encase we might want some debug code
> > in linux to look at the region of memory.
> >
> > I've got examples at qualcomm where we have shared data structures in
> > specific memory regions between different processors that aren't cache
> > coherent, so want the memory not to be marked as cacheable by Linux
> > when it accesses it.  Again we'd have a "qcom,smem" prop on top of the
> > "reserved-memory-region".
>
> I think that is a reasonable approach, and works really well for regions
> associated with specific hardware because the hardware driver can be
> responsible for wiring it up to CMA or manage the region directly.
> Whatever the driver desires to do.
>
> It still remains what to do for generic regions that any device can use.
> As I've previously said, I don't like calling out "CMA" specifically in
> the compatible property because that happens to be a Linux
> implementation specific details. Two years from now someone may propose
> a new allocator that should take over what used to be handled by CMA
> (kind of like how CMA may end up taking over from ION)....
>
> Alright, I've thought about it some more and it probably does make sense
> to use an additional compatible string. Marek originally suggested
> "linux,contiguous-memory-region". I later suggested "shareable-memory-region",
> but that's actually a worse name because it doesn't have any reference
> to what the region is for (I was fixating on the kernel being able to
> use unallocated pages; but that is also an implementation detail). I
> exercise my right to change my mind and agree that contiguous is
> appropriate here. But instead of calling out the contiguous allocator,
> the binding should specifically lay out the usage model for these
> regions. I would change the contiguous-memory binding to state the
> following:
> 	Contiguous-memory is a region of general purpose memory from
> 	which large buffers of contiguous memory can be allocated.
> 	Contiguous buffers are often used for DMA buffers. The operating
> 	system may use the memory for any purpose, but must immediately
> 	release the pages if a contiguous buffer is required.
>
> So the way I read things, the current proposal would be:
>
> The generic form for do-not-touch memory:
> 	compatible = "reserved-memory";
>   - I've dropped '-region' because I think it is redundant
>   - The kernel will not make use of this memory except for when a driver picks it up
>
> For contiguous memory:
> 	compatible = "contiguous-memory", "reserved-memory"
>
> For contiguous memory that Linux will use by default if a specific
> region isn't specified.
> 	compatible = "contiguous-memory", "reserved-memory"
> 	linux,default-contiguous-region;
>   - I stuck with a linux, prefix here because I haven't come up with a
>     non-linux way to describe this.
>
> Memory that specific hardware can pick up:
> 	compatible = "qcom,smem", "reserved-memory"
>
> Nodes with a 'size' property and without a 'reg' property need to have a
> region allocated and reserved. The allocated region needs to be cached
> somewhere. We could create a data structure for tracking the reserved
> regions, or could write it in directly. While I shudder at the thought of
> modifying the device tree at runtime by the kernel, it might just be the
> sanest implementation at this time. I'd like to see what the
> implementation looks like. (Since this is potentially controversial, I
> would recommend implementing the exact regions in on patch, and add
> dynamically allocated regions as a follow-up patch)
>
> As far as proper implementation is concerned, I think it should be
> explicit in the binding that the kernel should automatically exclude
> anything under the reserved-memory node, regardless of the compatible
> value. Merely being a child of the reserved-memory node immediately
> means that it is a reserved memory region.

It looks that my proposal for the reserved memory nodes causes much more
controversy than I expected when I've sent a pull request to Linus:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/15/151
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg273548.html

Fixing those issues requires further discussion. Frankly, right now I
really have no idea which way should I go. The /reserved-ranges node seems
to be easy to match particular reserved memory region with a given device.
I'm also not really convinced if it makes sense to add a code for finding
and matching a reserved memory region to every device driver, which might
need it. I would really like to get some more feedback on the Ben's
comment.

In any case, the code will also change significantly, so I assume that the
best, what can be done now is to revert the current version and start from
the scratch with a new, complete proposal.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland