From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D14C4363C for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A597A21927 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731078AbgJHPan (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:30:43 -0400 Received: from [157.25.102.26] ([157.25.102.26]:45398 "EHLO orcam.me.uk" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730918AbgJHPam (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:30:42 -0400 Received: from bugs.linux-mips.org (eddie.linux-mips.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:201:92aa::3]) by orcam.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 034142BE086; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:30:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:30:35 +0100 (BST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Serge Semin cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer , Hauke Mehrtens , =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= , Florian Fainelli , bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, Jiaxun Yang , Keguang Zhang , John Crispin , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: replace add_memory_region with memblock In-Reply-To: <20201008152006.4khkbzsxqmmz76rw@mobilestation> Message-ID: References: <20201008084357.42780-1-tsbogend@alpha.franken.de> <20201008152006.4khkbzsxqmmz76rw@mobilestation> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Serge Semin wrote: > At least I don't see a decent reason to preserve them. The memory registration > method does nearly the same sanity checks. The memory reservation function > defers a bit in adding the being reserved memory first. That seems redundant, > since the reserved memory won't be available for the system anyway. Do I miss > something? At the very least it serves informational purposes as it shows up in /proc/iomem. Maciej