From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s-anna@ti.com (Suman Anna) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:13:40 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] remoteproc: add support to handle internal memories In-Reply-To: References: <1420838519-15669-1-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <1420838519-15669-3-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <20150211205757.GI2531@atomide.com> <54DD131F.8040704@ti.com> Message-ID: <54DE22B4.7020807@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Ohad, On 02/12/2015 11:20 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Suman Anna wrote: >> My original motivation was that it would only need to be added on >> firmwares requiring support for loading into internal memories, >> otherwise, these are something left to be managed by the software >> running on the remote processor completely, and MPU will not even touch >> them. > > Sure. But even if you guys will use this interface correctly, this > patch essentially exposes ioremap to user space, which is something we > generally want to avoid. > >> So, let me know if this is a NAK. If so, we have two options - one to go >> the sram node model where each of them have to be defined separately, >> and have a specific property in the rproc nodes to be able to get the >> gen_pool handles. The other one is simply to define these as and >> use devm_ioremap_resource() (so use DT for defining the regions instead >> of a resource table entry). > > Any approach where these regions are defined explicitly really sounds > better. If you could look into these two alternatives that would be > great. OK, will do. Meanwhile, can you pick up Patch 1, that is independent of this patch. regards Suman