On Fri 26 Aug 13:19 PDT 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > Some coprocessors request fixed memory mapping for firmware execution > and associated communication linked. > Memory resources are defined in firmware resource table. > Resource address different from 0x0 and 0xFFFFFFFF is considered as predefined
Do you think we're required to support both 0 and -1 for this? > and already reserved at system level. > In that case, remoteproc core doesn't need to perform any allocation. > Memory region access can be managed using memremap/memunmap functions > > Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 61 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > include/linux/remoteproc.h | 4 +++ > 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index 18f4286..0ddbb92 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -213,13 +213,25 @@ int rproc_alloc_vring(struct rproc_vdev *rvdev, int i) > /* actual size of vring (in bytes) */ > size = PAGE_ALIGN(vring_size(rvring->len, rvring->align)); > > - /* > - * Allocate non-cacheable memory for the vring. In the future > - * this call will also configure the IOMMU for us > - */ > - va = dma_alloc_coherent(dev->parent, size, &dma, GFP_KERNEL); > + rsc = (void *)rproc->table_ptr + rvdev->rsc_offset; > + > + /* check if specific memory region requested by firmware */ > + if (rsc->vring[i].da != 0 && rsc->vring[i].da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) { I think we should convert that reserved field in the vring to a "pa"; allowing this resource to not be 1:1 mapped into the remote. And if nothing else just to be consistent with the carveouts and devmem. @Suman, do you have any input on this? Regards, Bjorn
