From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753674AbbBMQOH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:14:07 -0500
Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:44892 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753608AbbBMQOF (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:14:05 -0500
Message-ID: <54DE22B4.7020807@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:13:40 -0600
From: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>
CC: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com>, Robert Tivy <rtivy@ti.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] remoteproc: add support to handle internal memories
References: <1420838519-15669-1-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <1420838519-15669-3-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <CAK=WgbaFoUpV315Tg1q=PGc-FkCvKBz2BmO8Fkj_FHa5UuWviw@mail.gmail.com> <20150211205757.GI2531@atomide.com> <CAK=WgbbFxNfn5tUeJn-8NehFXAD+=7UW-WtBf3ZFm1xyomFAfA@mail.gmail.com> <54DD131F.8040704@ti.com> <CAK=WgbaK+TNJR1UHm7orcFk7kaGTWMQsW0XhX_t7qvWwe+YJEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK=WgbaK+TNJR1UHm7orcFk7kaGTWMQsW0XhX_t7qvWwe+YJEg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Ohad,

On 02/12/2015 11:20 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> wrote:
>> My original motivation was that it would only need to be added on
>> firmwares requiring support for loading into internal memories,
>> otherwise, these are something left to be managed by the software
>> running on the remote processor completely, and MPU will not even touch
>> them.
> 
> Sure. But even if you guys will use this interface correctly, this
> patch essentially exposes ioremap to user space, which is something we
> generally want to avoid.
> 
>> So, let me know if this is a NAK. If so, we have two options - one to go
>> the sram node model where each of them have to be defined separately,
>> and have a specific property in the rproc nodes to be able to get the
>> gen_pool handles. The other one is simply to define these as <reg> and
>> use devm_ioremap_resource() (so use DT for defining the regions instead
>> of a resource table entry).
> 
> Any approach where these regions are defined explicitly really sounds
> better. If you could look into these two alternatives that would be
> great.

OK, will do. Meanwhile, can you pick up Patch 1, that is independent of
this patch.

regards
Suman