[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=WgbaK+TNJR1UHm7orcFk7kaGTWMQsW0XhX_t7qvWwe+YJEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:20:16 +0200
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>, Robert Tivy <rtivy@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] remoteproc: add support to handle internal memories
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com> wrote:
> My original motivation was that it would only need to be added on
> firmwares requiring support for loading into internal memories,
> otherwise, these are something left to be managed by the software
> running on the remote processor completely, and MPU will not even touch
> them.
Sure. But even if you guys will use this interface correctly, this
patch essentially exposes ioremap to user space, which is something we
generally want to avoid.
> So, let me know if this is a NAK. If so, we have two options - one to go
> the sram node model where each of them have to be defined separately,
> and have a specific property in the rproc nodes to be able to get the
> gen_pool handles. The other one is simply to define these as <reg> and
> use devm_ioremap_resource() (so use DT for defining the regions instead
> of a resource table entry).
Any approach where these regions are defined explicitly really sounds
better. If you could look into these two alternatives that would be
great.
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
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