[PATCH] ARM: dts: rockchip: Reserve unusable memory region on rk3066

Heiko Stübner heiko at sntech.de
Tue Oct 4 11:56:27 PDT 2016

Hi Paweł,

Am Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016, 13:56:07 schrieb Paweł Jarosz:
> >>>> I don't think this is a sane workaround, but it is at best difficult to
> >>>> tell, given there's no reason given for why this memory is unusable.
> >>>> 
> >>>> For instance, if bus accesses to this address hang, then this patch
> >>>> only
> >>>> makes the hand less likely, since the kernel will still map the region
> >>>> (and
> >>>> therefore the CPU can perform speculative accesses).
> >>>> 
> >>>> Are issues with this memory consistently seen in practice?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Can you enable CONFIG_MEMTEST and pass 'memtest' to the kernel, to
> >>>> determine if the memory is returning erroneous values?
> >>> 
> >>> just for the sake of completeness, on the rk3288 the issue was the dma
> >>> not
> >>> being able to access the specific memory region (interestingly also the
> >>> last 16MB but of the 4GB area supported on the rk3288). So memory itself
> >>> was ok, just dma access to it failed.
> >> 
> >> How odd.
> >> 
> >>> We didn't find any other sane solution to limit the dma access in a
> >>> general way at the time, so opted for just blocking the memory region
> >>> (as
> >>> it was similarly only
> >> 
> >> I was under the impression that dma-ranges could describe this kind of
> >> DMA addressing limitation. Was there some problem with that? Perhaps the
> >> driver is not acquiring/configuring its mask correctly?
> > 
> > I remember looking at (and trying) different options back then.
> > 
> > dma-mask wanted power-of-2 values (so it's either 4GB or 2GB (or lower)),
> > zone-dma was a 32bit (and non-dt) thing and dma-ranges seem to simply also
> > calculate a dma-mask from the value, so you're down to 2GB again.
> > 
> > So just blocking of those 16MB at the end for 4GB devices somehow sounded
> > nicer than limiting dma access to only half the memory.
> > 
> > I may be overlooking something but that was what I came up with last year.
> > 
> > 
> > Heiko
> Is there a chance to accept this patch?
> I know it's not the best solution to this problem, but i don't know
> a better one.

there is always a "chance". But with changes like these, we always try to find 
a real cause first, before resorting to solutions like this. So it's definitly 
not off the table, but I'd like to investigate further first, so that we don't 
accumulate unnecessary hacks over time.

Especially that your region seems to be in the middle of the designated ram 
area is strange.

Could you please tell which board you're using (and how much memory it has)


More information about the Linux-rockchip mailing list