Am Freitag, 5. Juli 2013, 14:55:40 schrieb Fabio Estevam:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Heiko Stübner <he...@sntech.de> wrote:
> > Some SoCs need parts of their sram for special purposes. So while being
> > part of the periphal, it should not be part of the genpool controlling
> > the sram.
> >
> > Threfore add an option mmio-sram-reserved to keep arbitary portions of
> > the sram from being part of the pool.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Rob Herring <robherri...@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <he...@sntech.de>
> > Tested-by: Ulrich Prinz <ulrich.pr...@googlemail.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt | 8 +++
> > drivers/misc/sram.c | 80
> > +++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 6
> > deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt index 4d0a00e..eae080e
> > 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt
> >
> > @@ -8,9 +8,17 @@ Required properties:
> > - reg : SRAM iomem address range
> >
> > +Optional properties:
> > +
> > +- mmio-sram-reserved: ordered list of reserved chunks inside the sram
> > that + should not become part of the genalloc pool.
> > + Format is <base size>, <base size>, ...; with base being relative to
> > the + reg property base.
>
> Isn't it a typo?
>
> I think you meant:
> Format is <base start>, <reserved size>,
no, the intended format is like
<0x0 0x100>, <0x1000 0x100>, ...
base + size, base + size, and so on
>
> > +
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > sram: sram@5c000000 {
> >
> > compatible = "mmio-sram";
> > reg = <0x5c000000 0x40000>; /* 256 KiB SRAM at address 0x5c000000
> > */
> >
> > + mmio-sram-reserved = <0x0 0x100>; /* reserve
> > 0x5c000000-0x5c000100 */
>
> >
> > };
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
