From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 4/9] ARM: OMAP2+: AM33XX: Reserve memory to comply with EMIF spec Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:11:39 -0700 Message-ID: <87vc3eaogk.fsf@kernel.org> References: <1375811376-49985-1-git-send-email-d-gerlach@ti.com> <1375811376-49985-5-git-send-email-d-gerlach@ti.com> <87fvukhwtv.fsf@kernel.org> <5203F21F.3010801@ti.com> <87vc3ggd8s.fsf@kernel.org> <5203FB55.6000300@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:40907 "EHLO mail-pd0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933972Ab3HIPLn (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:11:43 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x10so669789pdj.1 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:11:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5203FB55.6000300@ti.com> (Santosh Shilimkar's message of "Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:11:01 -0400") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Santosh Shilimkar Cc: Dave Gerlach , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Paul Walmsley , Vaibhav Bedia Santosh Shilimkar writes: > On Thursday 08 August 2013 04:05 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Santosh Shilimkar writes: >> >>> On Thursday 08 August 2013 02:16 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>> Dave Gerlach writes: >>>> >>>>> From: Vaibhav Bedia >>>>> >>>>> SDRAM controller on AM33XX requires that a modification of certain >>>>> bit-fields in PWR_MGMT_CTRL register (ref. section 7.3.5.13 in >>>>> AM335x-Rev H) is followed by a dummy read access to SDRAM. This >>>>> scenario arises when entering a low power state like DeepSleep. >>>>> To ensure that the read is not from a cached region we reserve >>>>> some memory during bootup using the arm_memblock_steal() API. >>>> >>>> Hmm, sounds to me an awful lot like the existing omap_bus_sync() ? >>>> >>> All the credit of that awful omap_bus_sync() goes to me since >>> I introduced it. And I keep beating the hardware guys >>> who have not left a choice but to introduce the ugly work >>> around in software. ;-) >> >> Agreed, but what's even more awful than the current version is >> duplicating it in a slightly different way using yet another whole page >> mapping for a single read/write location. >> > The real issue is limitation of the kernel memory steal(memblock) API which > won't let you still less than 1 MB. It would have been ok for page allocation > because that is any way what you will get minimum on standard non-cached > allocations. All the more reason that the omap_bus_sync() should be refactored slightly in a way that would be reusable for AM33xx. Kevin