From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stewart Smith Subject: Re: Extending /memreserve/ to allow defining descriptions Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:28:28 +1100 Message-ID: <87r32a6l43.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <9c1cb5e8-2afd-e266-72b9-20ca6622956e@gmail.com> <20170306035856.GF12030@umbus.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170306035856.GF12030-K0bRW+63XPQe6aEkudXLsA@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-spec-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Gibson , Florian Fainelli Cc: devicetree-spec-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring , glikely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org David Gibson writes: > What you could do is to add properties within the device tree further > annotating the reservations, with the extra structure essentially just > acting as an easy-to-parse summary of that. In fact I know that POWER > systems firmware use 'reserved-ranges' and 'reserved-names' properties > for this. I don't know if anyone else has adopted that though. We've also been toying with the idea of creating a binding for "named reserved memory range that should probably show up in debugfs" I'd also be happy with a standard binding to do it. -- Stewart Smith OPAL Architect, IBM.