lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:27:36 +0100 From: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com> To: Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org> CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...il.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, Nishanth Peethambaran <nishanth.p@...il.com>, Marc <marc.ceeeee@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] drivers: of: add initialization code for reserved memory On 11.02.2014 21:19, Josh Cartwright wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:04:21PM +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> >> >> On 11.02.2014 21:02, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >>> On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 19:01 +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >>> >>>>> except that the former IMHO better suits the definition of memory >>>>> region, which I see as a single contiguous range of memory and can be >>>>> simplified to have a single reg entry per region. >>>> >>>> My point is rather if multiple reg tuples are found in a reserved memory >>>> node, the kernel must respect them and reserve the memory. I'm not >>>> arguing about whether or not that makes for a good binding. >>> >>> agreed. >> >> My point is why, if the binding defines that just a single tuple should be >> provided. > > FWIW, the usecase I had mentioned in reply to Grant in the patch 5/5 > thread [1] could make use of this. The shared memory region is split > into a main chunk and several "auxiliary" chunk, but collectively these > regions all share the same heap state. > > Josh > > 1: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140205192502.GO20228@joshc.qualcomm.com > The use case seems fine, but I believe it could be properly represented in device tree using multiple single-reg regions as well, unless the consumer can request a block of memory that crosses boundary of two sub-regions specified by reg entries of single region. Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists