From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Andersson Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Update PIL region memory map Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:30:41 -0800 Message-ID: <20190123003041.GF31919@minitux> References: <20190122055112.30943-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> <20190122055112.30943-2-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> <154818353130.20280.17905705223316470797@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <20190122192404.GB31919@minitux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Stephen Boyd , Andy Gross , David Brown , Sibi Sankar , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , linux-arm-msm , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, LKML List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Tue 22 Jan 15:10 PST 2019, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:24 AM Bjorn Andersson > wrote: > > > > On Tue 22 Jan 10:58 PST 2019, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2019-01-21 21:51:03) > > > > @@ -103,10 +138,30 @@ > > > > no-map; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > + venus_mem: memory@95800000 { > > > > + reg = <0 0x95800000 0 0x500000>; > > > > + no-map; > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > + cdsp_mem: memory@95d00000 { > > > > + reg = <0 0x95d00000 0 0x800000>; > > > > + no-map; > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > mba_region: memory@96500000 { > > > > reg = <0 0x96500000 0 0x200000>; > > > > no-map; > > > > }; > > > > + > > > > + slpi_mem: memory@96700000 { > > > > + reg = <0 0x96700000 0 0x1400000>; > > > > + no-map; > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > + spss_mem: memory@97b00000 { > > > > + reg = <0 0x97b00000 0 0x100000>; > > > > + no-map; > > > > + }; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > What's the plan if certain configurations don't use all these carveouts? > > > Can we mark the reservation nodes as status = "disabled", or the reverse > > > and mark them as status = "ok" in all boards, and then reclaim the > > > memory for peripherals we don't care to use? > > > > > > > The code path that picks these up does look for "status", so I suggest > > that we leave them all enabled in the platform dtsi and then let the > > device's reclaim them as needed. > > Does that mean we should add labels for all of the sub-nodes so that > boards can easily mark them "disabled"? > That sounds reasonable, I'll dig up some labels for the unlabeled nodes as well. Thanks, Bjorn