Hi Rob, On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Robert Tivy <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > @@ -660,6 +667,99 @@ int __init da850_register_mmcsd1(struct > davinci_mmc_config *config) > } > #endif > > +static struct platform_device *da8xx_dsp; > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA > + > +/* > + * The following address range was chosen because the XDC Platform for > + * OMAP-L138 DSP has this range as its default code/data placement. > + */ > +#define DA8XX_RPROC_CMA_BASE (0xc3000000) > [...] > +/* > + * The following address range was chosen because the XDC Platform for > + * OMAP-L138 DSP has this range as its default code/data placement. > + * > + * System integrators must ensure that Linux does not own this range. > + */ > +#define DA_CONTIG_BASE (0xc3000000) > +#define DA_CONTIG_SIZE (0x02000000)
I am concerned with the rigidity of the memory hole as its definition is currently proposed. As you noted DA_CONTIG_BASE and DA_CONTIG_SIZE must describe a range that is not used by Linux. Ideally this hole would not be in the middle of the usuable memory but instead at the top. For L138 boards with larger DDR packages this would mean carrying a patch to this file. I think the same also applies to DA8XX_RPROC_CMA_BASE but I have no hands-on experience yet with CMA. Is there any other means by which the hole's location and size can be specified which does not require patching this file? I imagine KConfig would work, but is this an acceptable use of KConfig? Best Regards, Ben Gardiner --- Nanometrics Inc. http://www.nanometrics.ca _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
