On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 22:05 -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > > Hmmm, of all the ideas, I think I like this one the best. It is a > little more verbose than I was thinking, but making each reserved > region (or set of reserved regions) have separate node has some very > real advantages. For one, the address decoding *just works* with our > existing helpers. Also it means that device nodes can directly > indicate the reserved regions associated with it by way of a phandle.
But that means that anything that needs to setup a simple memory allocator (and thus needs to know what to avoid) will need to walk the entire tree for nodes with a "reserved" property, be able to parse addresses down to that node (not always obvious accross some bus types), etc... Or do we propose to keep a "consolidated" reserve map in addition to having nodes self-describe which part of this reserve map they are responsible for, which thus gives the OS the option to: - Reserve it all - Then, based on specific knowledge of some nodes, maybe release or juts "tag" (for diag purposes) portions of reserved memory Ben. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
