On 08/19/2013 04:40 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:

On Monday 19 of August 2013 16:27:14 Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

On 08/19/2013 04:24 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:

quoted

On Monday 19 of August 2013 16:17:30 Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

On 08/19/2013 04:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:

quoted

Hi Stephen,

On Monday 19 of August 2013 15:49:20 Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

On 08/19/2013 09:04 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:

quoted

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

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

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>;

Well, such setup simply cannot be handled by Linux today, as one

...

quoted

quoted

I agree that the device tree should be able to describe such
configurations,

...

Well, if it's just about modifying the binding to support such cases, but 
without actually adding support for them in Linux, then I guess it's fine. 

Yes. I don't care so much if the SW won't work (yet?), but I want to
make sure the binding isn't going to need semantic changes.