On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 04:48:18 +0200
Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com> wrote:
> On 06/26/2012 08:32 PM, Mark Zhang wrote:
> >> On 06/26/2012 07:46 PM, Mark Zhang wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:55:13 +0200
> >>>>> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at avionic-design.de> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> I'm not sure I understand how information about the carveout would be
> >>>> obtained from the IOMMU API, though.
> >>>
> >>> I think that can be similar with current gart implementation. Define
> >>> carveout as:
> >>>
> >>> carveout {
> >>> compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-carveout";
> >>> size = <0x10000000>;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> Then create a file such like "tegra-carveout.c" to get these definitions
> >>> and
> >> register itself as platform device's iommu instance.
> >>
> >> The carveout isn't a HW object, so it doesn't seem appropriate to define a
> >> DT
> >> node to represent it.
> >
> > Yes. But I think it's better to export the size of carveout as a
> > configurable item.
> > So we need to define this somewhere. How about define carveout as a
> > property of gart?
>
> There already exists a way of preventing Linux from using certain chunks
> of memory; the /memreserve/ syntax. From a brief look at the dtc source,
> it looks like /memreserve/ entries can have labels, which implies that a
> property in the GART node could refer to the /memreserve/ entry by
> phandle in order to know what memory regions to use.
I think that we don't need the starting address for carveout but we
need its size. carveout memory is just anonymous physically
continguous buffer.
