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

Mon Sep 16 04:17:25 EDT 2013

On 9/16/2013 9:12 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> 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.

Huh, I've hurried to much. It should be:

The /reserved-ranges node approach seems to be easy to implement, but it
makes much harder to 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