From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752705AbaBYNUi (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:20:38 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.131]:49359 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752120AbaBYNUh (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:20:37 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Heiko =?iso-8859-1?q?St=FCbner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/6] dt-bindings: sram: describe option to reserve parts of the memory Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:19:30 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , arm@kernel.org, Grant Likely , Rob Herring , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Philipp Zabel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Stephen Warren , Ian Campbell , Sachin Kamat References: <21117503.1c6iOkvYSr@phil> <126672712.tufE5adZWC@phil> In-Reply-To: <126672712.tufE5adZWC@phil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <201402251419.31151.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:QsJ4CnxIZGugB/KrTrTrQh1sD4qPNrOiVs9HPkhDQ2X 0oO1MXNSABuvVQePMT8rH1NA1dgt3I03z7AYdGrHLW67vXrZHo Do0lc7gknRNo2rpajYJ3WQyZm297gP18FAWI+ZjhVtr3vu0wii LWV3K5S49rK7FuugN1zywSDS7anH03bKyTfqHGr7rLqTea8Gsi pai70wiChJaJ8F62gFVVcB5mgjmU8ZbY8S39IPct7N5c8yr9yW QccrqSV7OuhHt6r8mBWMaVo1hIGPefxYPD/XpE9eeB3t9aKFOD nXtpgYRF0QgFxcMWevuce/HB/4o8EziYrzLYeqJmDcrrAhm5L9 fsSaDlifg5uvcU+yolSw= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 25 February 2014, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Some SoCs need parts of their sram for special purposes. So while being part > of the peripheral, it should not be part of the genpool controlling the sram. > > Therefore add the option to define reserved regions as subnodes of the > sram-node similar to defining reserved global memory regions. [adding Sachin Kamat to Cc, he just had the same issue] > Originally > Suggested-by: Rob Herring > > Using subnodes for reserved regions > Suggested-by: Grant Likely > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner > Tested-by: Ulrich Prinz > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt > index 4d0a00e..2d83758 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt > @@ -8,9 +8,42 @@ Required properties: > > - reg : SRAM iomem address range > > +Reserving sram areas: > +--------------------- > + > +Each child of the sram node specifies a region of reserved memory. Each > +child node should use a 'reg' property to specify a specific range of > +reserved memory. > + > +Following the generic-names recommended practice, node names should > +reflect the purpose of the node. Unit address (@
) should be > +appended to the name. > + > +Required properties in the sram node: > + > +- #address-cells, #size-cells : should use the same values as the root node > +- ranges : standard definition, should be empty I think we should rather define the 'ranges' property to translate from addresses within the sram to bus addresses. > +Required properties in the area nodes: > + > +- reg : iomem address range > + > +Optional properties in the area nodes: > + > +- compatible : standard definition > + Is this enough? Normally we should define a list of "compatible" strings that people can add to, but not have an anything-allowed option. > Example: > > sram: sram@5c000000 { > compatible = "mmio-sram"; > reg = <0x5c000000 0x40000>; /* 256 KiB SRAM at address 0x5c000000 */ > + > + #adress-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + ranges; > + > + smp-sram@5c000100 { > + compatible = "socvendor,smp-sram"; > + reg = <0x5c000100 0x50>; > + }; > };