linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] drivers: of: add initialization code for reserved memory

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20140217165346.4C5B3C403B4@trevor.secretlab.ca>
Date:	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:53:46 +0000
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
To:	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.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 Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:48:40 -0600, Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:27:36PM +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I could probably make a only-one-reg-entry policy work for me, but it
> makes things a bit more awkward.  I'd lose the ability to describe
> "this set of regions need to be logically handled together" directly in
> the reserved memory node, and would need to push it up a layer.
> 
> 	reserved-memory {
> 		smem: smem {
> 			reg = <...>;
> 		};
> 		aux1: auxiliary1 {
> 			reg = <...>;
> 		};
> 		aux2: auxiliary2 {
> 			reg = <...>;
> 		};
> 		...
> 	};

If the regions are used for different purposes, it makes sense I think
to have a separate node for each. Multiple tuples would make more sense
for something like valid DMA regions for a broken device that can only
DMA into a few windows; you could have one tuple per window within a
single node.

It would be possible to collect multiple associated nodes under one
parent node which in turn has reserved-memory for its parent:

	reserved-memory {
		ranges;
		reserved-group {
			ranges;
			smem: smem {
				reg = <...>;
			};
			aux1: auxiliary1 {
				reg = <...>;
			};
			aux2: auxiliary2 {
				reg = <...>;
			};
		};
		...
	};

g.
--
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/