Creating kernel mappings for memory initially marked with bootmem NOMAP?

[f.fainelli@gmail.com (Florian Fainelli)]

On 03/08/2017 02:06 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 8 March 2017 at 20:52, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/08/2017 11:14 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 Mar 2017, at 20:03, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On our platforms (brcmstb) we have an use case where we boot with some
>>>> (a lot actually) memory carved out and marked initially with bootmem
>>>> NOMAP in order for this memory not to be mapped in the kernel's linear
>>>> mapping.
>>>>
>>>> Now, we have some peripherals that want large chunks of physically and
>>>> virtually contiguous memory that belong to these memblock NOMAP ranges.
>>>> I have no problems using mmap() against this memory, because the kernel
>>>> will do what is necessary for a process to map it for me. The struggle
>>>> is for a kernel driver which specifies a range of physical memory and
>>>> size, and expects a virtually contiguous mapping in return (not using
>>>> DMA-API, because reasons).
>>>>
>>>> Essentially the problem is that there are no PTEs created for these
>>>> memory regions (and pfn_valid() returns 0, since this is NOMAP memory),
>>>> so I have been playing with __add_pages() from the memory hotplug code
>>>> in an attempt to get proper page references to this memory, but I am
>>>> clearly missing something.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I know it's a terrible idea, but what if I wanted to get that working?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did you try memremap?
>>
>> Not yet, because this is done on 4.1 at the moment, but I will
>> definitively give this a try, thanks a lot!
>>
>> Side note: on a kernel that does not have memremap() (such as 4.1),
>> would not an ioremap_cache() on the physical range marked as NOMAP
>> result in the same behavior anyway? ioremap() won't catch the fact that
>> we are mapping RAM, since this is NOMAP, pfn_valid() returns 0.
>>
>> My understanding of the pfn_valid() check for ioremap() is to avoid
>> mapping the same DRAM location twice with potentially conflicting
>> attributes, but if it has not been mapped at all, as is the case with
>> NOMAP, does not that get me the same results?
>>
> 
> Yes, it does. But ioremap_cache() is deprecated for mapping normal
> memory. There remains a case for ioremap_cache() on ARM for mapping
> NOR flash (which is arguably a device) with cacheable attributes, but
> for the general case of mapping DRAM, you should not expect new code
> using ioremap_cache() to be accepted upstream.

This is very likely going to remain out of tree, and I will keep an eye
on migrating this to memremap() when we update to a newer kernel. Thanks!
-- 
Florian