[PATCH 1/2] ARM: Exynos: replace custom MFC reserved memory handling with generic code

[tomasz.figa@gmail.com (Tomasz Figa)]

Hi Stephen,

On Thursday 08 of August 2013 15:00:52 Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 06:26 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > MFC driver use custom bindings for managing reserved memory. Those
> > bindings are not really specific to MFC device and no even well
> > discussed. They can be easily replaced with generic, platform
> > independent code for handling reserved and contiguous memory.
> > 
> > Two additional child devices for each memory port (AXI master) are
> > introduced to let one assign some properties to each of them. Later
> > one
> > can also use them to assign properties related to SYSMMU controllers,
> > which can be used to manage the limited dma window provided by those
> > memory ports.
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/s5p-mfc.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/s5p-mfc.txt
> > 
> > +The MFC device is connected to system bus with two memory ports (AXI
> > +masters) for better performance. Those memory ports are modelled as
> > +separate child devices, so one can assign some properties to them
> > (like +memory region for dma buffer allocation or sysmmu controller).
> > +
> > 
> >  Required properties:
> >    - compatible : value should be either one among the following
> >  	
> >  	(a) "samsung,mfc-v5" for MFC v5 present in Exynos4 SoCs
> >  	(b) "samsung,mfc-v6" for MFC v6 present in Exynos5 SoCs
> > 
> > +	and additionally "simple-bus" to correctly initialize child
> > +	devices for memory ports (AXI masters)
> 
> simple-bus is wrong here; the child nodes aren't independent entities
> that can be instantiated separately from their parent and without
> depending on their parent.

I fully agree, but I can't think of anything better. Could you suggest a 
solution that would cover our use case:

The MFC IP has two separate bus masters (called here and there memports). 
On some SoCs, each master must use different memory bank to meet memory 
bandwidth requirements for higher bitrate video streams. This can be seen 
as MFC having two DMA subdevices, which have different DMA windows.

On Linux, this is handled by binding two appropriate CMA memory regions to 
the memports, so the driver can do DMA allocations on behalf of particular 
memport and get appropriate memory for it.

> > -  - samsung,mfc-r : Base address of the first memory bank used by MFC
> > -		    for DMA contiguous memory allocation and its size.
> > -
> > -  - samsung,mfc-l : Base address of the second memory bank used by
> > MFC
> > -		    for DMA contiguous memory allocation and its size.
> 
> These properties shouldn't be removed, but simply marked deprecated. The
> driver will need to continue to support them so that old DTs work with
> new kernels. The binding must therefore continue to document them so
> that the old DT content still makes sense.

I tend to disagree on this. For Samsung platforms we've been trying to 
avoid DT bindings changes as much as possible, but I'd rather say that 
device tree was coupled with kernel version it came from, so Samsung-
specific bindings haven't been fully stabilized yet, especially since we 
are still at discussion stage when it's about defining processes for 
binding staging and stabilization.

I would rather see this patch as part of work on Samsung DT binding 
janitoring or maybe even sanitizing in some cases, like this one, when the 
old (and IMHO bad) MFC binding was introduced without proper review. I 
don't think we want to support this kind of brokenness anymore, especially 
considering the hacks which would be required by such support (see 
original implementation of this binding and code required in board file).

> > +Two child nodes must be defined for MFC device. Their names must be
> > +following: "memport-r" and "memport-l" ("right" and "left"). Required
> 
> Node names shouldn't have semantic meaning.

What about bus-master-0 and bus-master-1?

> > +properties:
> > +  - compatible : value should be "samsung,memport"
> 
> There's no need to define compatible properties for things which aren't
> separate devices.

I agree.

> > +  - dma-memory-region : optional property with a phandle to
> > respective memory +			region (see 
devicetree/bindings/memory.txt), if
> > no region
> > +			is defined, sysmmu controller must be used for 
managing
> > +			limited dma window of each memory port.
> 
> What's the benefit of putting this property in a sub-node; surely you
> can put the property in the main MFC node yet follow the same conceptual
> schema for its content as a dma-memory-region node?

See my use case description above.

Best regards,
Tomasz