From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: slash.tmp@free.fr (Mason)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:35:34 +0100
Subject: Virtual addresses, ioremap, vmalloc, etc
In-Reply-To: <2755513.X6tENxzvXm@wuerfel>
References: <565D8DA9.8040700@free.fr> <2755513.X6tENxzvXm@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <565DB036.3010306@free.fr>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 01/12/2015 14:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 December 2015 13:08:09 Mason wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I was wondering if someone could help clear my confusion.
>>
>> In my company's legacy port (based on 3.4, dating back to 2.6) someone
>> chose to map the first 16 MB of physical addresses using:
>>
>> static struct map_desc tango_map_desc[] __initdata = {
>> 	{
>> 		.virtual	= 0xf0000000,
>> 		.pfn		=__phys_to_pfn(0),
>> 		.length		= SZ_16M,
>> 		.type 		= MT_DEVICE,
>> 	},
>> };
>>
>> static void __init tango_map_io(void)
>> {
>> 	iotable_init(tango_map_desc, ARRAY_SIZE(tango_map_desc));
>> }
>>
>> Is the virtual address 0xf0000000 chosen arbitrary?
>> Could I pick 0xf04200000 for example?
> 
> It is arbitrary, but normally should be naturally aligned.
> 
>> The same kernel, with no such boot-time mapping prints:
>>
>> [    0.000000] Memory: 641720K/655360K available (3135K kernel code, 109K rwdata, 1056K rodata, 3044K init, 218K bss, 13640K reserved, 0K cma-reserve)
>> [    0.000000] Virtual kernel memory layout:
>> [    0.000000]     vector  : 0xffff0000 - 0xffff1000   (   4 kB)
>> [    0.000000]     fixmap  : 0xffc00000 - 0xfff00000   (3072 kB)
>> [    0.000000]     vmalloc : 0xe8800000 - 0xff000000   ( 360 MB)
>> [    0.000000]     lowmem  : 0xc0000000 - 0xe8000000   ( 640 MB)
>>
>> It looks like 0xf0000000 is in the middle of the vmalloc space.
>> Is it a good idea to "statically" map something there?
> 
> We deal with that on a lof of platforms that still use a static
> mapping. I normally advocate not using that kind of mapping unless
> you can show a measurable performance difference on your platform.
> 
>> If I were to call ioremap(0, SZ_16M); at run-time, I would imagine
>> the virtual address could be anywhere in the vmalloc space?
>> There's no reason it would be 0xf0000000, right?
>>
>> In short, is virtual address 0xf0000000 special in any way?
>> (Other than being in the vmalloc space perhaps.)
>>
>> For my own reference:
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/arm/memory.txt
> 
> I think 0xf0000000 is a common choice because that made an easy
> computation back in the days when most platforms used an
> io_p2v() to get a hardcoded virtual address, rather than calling
> ioremap as we do today.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

One more thing: when I configure earlyprintk, I'm supposed to provide
physical AND virtual address of the UART.

If I'm not using a hard-coded P2V mapping, and instead rely on ioremap,
how am I supposed to know the virtual address of the UART?

Regards.