lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 09/10] ARM: dts: sun7i-a20: Add Video Engine and reserved memory nodes
From
Date
Hi,

On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 09:39 +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 05:45:35PM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > This adds nodes for the Video Engine and the associated reserved
> > memory
> > for the Allwinner A20. Up to 96 MiB of memory are dedicated to the
> > VPU.
> >
> > The VPU can only map the first 256 MiB of DRAM, so the reserved
> > memory
> > pool has to be located in that area. Following Allwinner's decision
> > in
> > downstream software, the last 96 MiB of the first 256 MiB of RAM are
> > reserved for this purpose.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi | 31
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
> > index bd0cd3204273..cb6d82065dcf 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
> > @@ -163,6 +163,20 @@
> > reg = <0x40000000 0x80000000>;
> > };
> >
> > + reserved-memory {
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > + ranges;
> > +
> > + /* Address must be kept in the lower 256 MiBs of
> > DRAM for VE. */
> > + ve_memory: cma@4a000000 {
> > + compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
> > + reg = <0x4a000000 0x6000000>;
> > + no-map;
>
> I'm not sure why no-map is needed.

In fact, having no-map here would lead to reserving the area as cache-
coherent instead of contiguous and thus prevented dmabuf support.
Replacing it by "resuable" allows proper CMA reservation.

> And I guess we could use alloc-ranges to make sure the region is in
> the proper memory range, instead of hardcoding it.

As far as I could understand from the documentation, "alloc-ranges" is
used for dynamic allocation while only "reg" is used for static
allocation. We are currently going with static allocation and thus
reserve the whole 96 MiB. Is using dynamic allocation instead desirable
here?

> > + linux,cma-default;
> > + };
> > + };
> > +
> > timer {
> > compatible = "arm,armv7-timer";
> > interrupts = <GIC_PPI 13 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) |
> > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
> > @@ -451,6 +465,23 @@
> > };
> > };
> >
> > + ve: video-engine@1c0e000 {
> > + compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-video-
> > engine";
>
> We should have an A20-specific compatible here, at least, so that we
> can deal with any quirk we might find down the road.

Yes that's a very good point.

> > + reg = <0x01c0e000 0x1000>;
> > + memory-region = <&ve_memory>;
>
> Since you made the CMA region the default one, you don't need to tie
> it to that device in particular (and you can drop it being mandatory
> from your binding as well).

What if another driver (or the system) claims memory from that zone and
that the reserved memory ends up not being available for the VPU
anymore?

Acccording to the reserved-memory documentation, the reusable property
(that we need for dmabuf) puts a limitation that the device driver
owning the region must be able to reclaim it back.

How does that work out if the CMA region is not tied to a driver in
particular?

> > +
> > + clocks = <&ccu CLK_AHB_VE>, <&ccu CLK_VE>,
> > + <&ccu CLK_DRAM_VE>;
> > + clock-names = "ahb", "mod", "ram";
> > +
> > + assigned-clocks = <&ccu CLK_VE>;
> > + assigned-clock-rates = <320000000>;
>
> This should be set from within the driver. If it's something that you
> absolutely needed for the device to operate, you have no guarantee
> that the clock rate won't change at any point in time after the device
> probe, so that's not a proper solution.
>
> And if it's not needed and can be adjusted depending on the
> framerate/codec/resolution, then it shouldn't be in the DT either.

Yes, that makes sense.

> Don't you also need to map the SRAM on the A20?

That's a good point, there is currently no syscon handle for A20 (and
also A13). Maybe SRAM is muxed to the VE by default so it "just works"?

I'll investigate on this side, also keeping in mind that the actual
solution is to use the SRAM controller driver (but that won't make it to
v3).

Cheers and thanks for the review!

--
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-04 09:51    [W:1.501 / U:5.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site