Thread (1 message) 1 message, 1 author, 2012-06-27

Re: Tegra DRM device tree bindings

From: Thierry Reding <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-27 05:52:24
Also in: dri-devel, linux-iommu, linux-tegra

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:48:18PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/26/2012 08:32 PM, Mark Zhang wrote:
quoted
quoted
On 06/26/2012 07:46 PM, Mark Zhang wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:55:13 +0200
Thierry Reding [off-list ref] wrote:
...
quoted
quoted
I'm not sure I understand how information about the carveout would be
obtained from the IOMMU API, though.
I think that can be similar with current gart implementation. Define carveout as:

carveout {
        compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-carveout";
        size = <0x10000000>;
};

Then create a file such like "tegra-carveout.c" to get these definitions and
register itself as platform device's iommu instance.

The carveout isn't a HW object, so it doesn't seem appropriate to define a DT
node to represent it.
Yes. But I think it's better to export the size of carveout as a configurable item.
So we need to define this somewhere. How about define carveout as a property of gart?
There already exists a way of preventing Linux from using certain chunks
of memory; the /memreserve/ syntax. From a brief look at the dtc source,
it looks like /memreserve/ entries can have labels, which implies that a
property in the GART node could refer to the /memreserve/ entry by
phandle in order to know what memory regions to use.
That doesn't work, unfortunately. The /memreserve/ label isn't even
stored in the DTB. Even DTC throws an error when you try to reference
the /memreserve/ by label.

Thierry
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help