Re: [PATCH 16/21] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: introduce designated-movable-block
From: Doug Berger
Date: Tue Sep 20 2022 - 20:14:26 EST
On 9/19/2022 4:03 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 19/09/2022 01:12, Doug Berger wrote:
On 9/18/2022 3:31 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 14/09/2022 18:13, Doug Berger wrote:
On 9/14/2022 7:55 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 12:55:03PM -0700, Doug Berger wrote:
Introduce designated-movable-block.yaml to document the
devicetree binding for Designated Movable Block children of the
reserved-memory node.
What is a Designated Movable Block? This patch needs to stand on its
own.
As noted in my reply to your [PATCH 00/21] comment, my intention in
submitting the entire patch set (and specifically PATCH 00/21]) was to
communicate this context. Now that I believe I understand that only this
patch should have been submitted to the devicetree-spec mailing list, I
will strive harder to make it more self contained.
The submission of entire thread was ok. What is missing is the
explanation in this commit. This commit must be self-explanatory (e.g.
in explaining "Why are you doing it?"), not rely on other commits for
such explanation.
Why does this belong or need to be in DT?
While my preferred method of declaring Designated Movable Blocks is
through the movablecore kernel parameter, I can conceive that others may
wish to take advantage of the reserved-memory DT nodes. In particular,
it has the advantage that a device can claim ownership of the
reserved-memory via device tree, which is something that has yet to be
implemented for DMBs defined with movablecore.
Rephrasing the question: why OS memory layout and OS behavior is a
property of hardware (DTS)?
I would say the premise is fundamentally the same as the existing
reserved-memory child node.
I don't think it is fundamentally the same.
The existing reserved-memory node describes memory used by hardware - by
other devices. The OS way of handling this memory - movable, reclaimable
etc - is not part of it.
So no, it is not the same.
I've been rethinking how this should be specified. I am now thinking
that it may be better to introduce a new Reserved Memory property that
serves as a modifier to the 'reusable' property. The 'reusable' property
allows the OS to use memory that has been reserved for a device and
therefore requires the device driver to reclaim the memory prior to its
use. However, an OS may have multiple ways of implementing such reuse
and reclamation.
... and I repeat the question - why OS way of implementing reuse and
reclamation is relevant to DT?
I am considering introducing the vendor specific 'linux,dmb' property
that is dependent on the 'reusable' property to allow both the OS and
the device driver to identify the method used by the Linux OS to support
reuse and reclamation of the reserved-memory child node.
Sure, but why? Why OS and Linux driver specific pieces should be in DT?
Such a property would remove any need for new compatible strings to the
device tree. Does that approach seem reasonable to you?
No, because you did not explain original question. At all.
I apologize if I have somehow offended you, but please recognize that my
apparent inability to answer your question does not come from an
unwillingness to do so.
I believe an example of the reserved-memory node being used the way you
indicate (though there are other uses) can be expressed with device tree
nodes like these:
reserved-memory {
#address-cells = <0x1>;
#size-cells = <0x1>;
ranges;
multimedia_reserved: multimedia@80000000 {
reg = <0x80000000 0x10000000>;
};
};
decoder@8012000 {
memory-region = <&multimedia_reserved>;
/* ... */
};
Here a 256MB chunk of memory is reserved for use by a hardware decoder
as part of rendering a video stream. In this case the memory is reserved
for the exclusive use of the decoder device and its associated device
driver.
The Devicetree Specification includes a property named 'reusable' that
could be applied to the multimedia node to allow the OS to "use the
memory in this region with the limitation that the device driver(s)
owning the region need to be able to reclaim it back". This is a good
idea, because this memory could probably be put to good use when the
decoder is not active. Unfortunately, the methods for reusing this
memory are not defined for Linux so the multimedia reserved memory would
not be reused even though the devicetree indicates that it is allowed.
The notion behind this commit was to introduce the
'designated-movable-block' compatible string that could be added to the
multimedia node to allow the Client Program (i.e. Linux) to select a
device driver that knows how to reclaim reserved memory back from the OS
when it is needed by the decoder device and release it back to the OS
when the decoder no longer needs it. In this way, the purpose of the
multimedia node remains the same (i.e. to reserve memory for use by a
device), but a new compatible string is defined to allow for selection
of an appropriate device driver and allow successful reuse of the memory
for the benefit of the system.
From Rob's feedback it is clear that 'designated-movable-block' is not
an appropriate name, but maybe 'linux,dmb' might have been. However, it
would be more flexible if a 'linux,dmb' property could be introduced as
a modifier to the existing 'reusable' property to provide a general
mechanism for clarifying how 'reusable' should be supported by the
Client Software and its device drivers.
Such a property is not directly relevant to hardware, but the devicetree
is not wholly concerned with hardware. Reserved memory node children
include support for 'linux,cma-default' and 'linux,dma-default'
properties that signal behavioral intent to the Linux OS. Some aspects
of the devicetree (e.g. the /chosen node and 'reusable' property) are
for the benefit of the Client Program.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
I hope this is closer to the answer you seek, but I may simply not
understand the question being asked,
-Doug