Allen Curtis wrote: >>> Should the DPRAM appear as it's own platform_device? >> >> >> No. >> >>> Option 1) Specify the portion of the DPRAM used by each device with >>> that platform_device definition. (current) >> >> >> You mean the parameter space? That's different from DPRAM. >> >>> Option 2) Define the whole DPRAM region as its own platform_device >>> entry. Move the device DPRAM information to the device specific >>> platform structure. >> >> >> How is this any different from using the dpalloc() as it is today? >> >> The problem is that for the few standard devices we publicly support in >> Linux it is easy to think of DPRAM as a "general" resource. However, for >> more challenging devices and implementation, there are sometimes specific >> regions of DPRAM that must be used with various additional restrictions. >> For many of the "real world" devices I have done, drivers would manage >> their own, well known, DPRAM areas. It isn't something that is easy >> to generalize or configure in advance. >> > Time for code. > > - Allen >
FWIW the current dpalloc implementation supports "carving out" the usable dpram out of the whole. I mean you could conceivably not "give" the driver specific dpram areas to the generic allocator. This should be a per platform configuration item. The current code just doesn't bother... Regards Pantelis