On Feb 8, 2011, at 12:45 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > 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
Excellent point. I always thought we were keeping the reservation list and it starts "anonymous". Only later to we want to "name" it. We could define a standard property (for any node) called "reserved" that is the range within the list. I suppose if it is empty, then it is all of "reg" -JX > > Ben. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
