Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] soc: qcom: rmtfs: Support discarding guard pages

Bjorn Andersson
2023-09-22T13:46:28Z

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 09:35:00AM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> eOn Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 07:51:42PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 08:04:06PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 07:37:31PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > In some configurations, the exact placement of the rmtfs shared memory
> > > > region isn't so strict. The DeviceTree author can then choose to use the
> > > > "size" property and rely on the OS for placement (in combination with
> > > > "alloc-ranges", if desired).
> > > >
> > > > But on some platforms the rmtfs memory region may not be allocated
> > > > adjacent to regions allocated by other clients. Add support for
> > > > discarding the first and last 4k block in the region, if
> > > > qcom,use-guard-pages is specified in DeviceTree.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/soc/qcom/rmtfs_mem.c | 9 +++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rmtfs_mem.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rmtfs_mem.c
> > > > index f83811f51175..83bba9321e72 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rmtfs_mem.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rmtfs_mem.c
> > > > @@ -200,6 +200,15 @@ static int qcom_rmtfs_mem_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > rmtfs_mem->client_id = client_id;
> > > > rmtfs_mem->size = rmem->size;
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If requested, discard the first and last 4k block in order to ensure
> > > > + * that the rmtfs region isn't adjacent to other protected regions.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (of_property_present(node, "qcom,use-guard-pages")) {
> > >
> > > I think of_property_read_bool() would be more fitting here. Right now
> > > of_property_present() is just a wrapper around of_property_read_bool().
> > > Semantically reading a bool fits better here though. :-)
> > >
> >
> > Are you saying that you would prefer this to be a bool, so hat you can
> > give it a "false" value? Or you are simply saying "it walks like a
> > boolean, quacks like a boolean, let's use the boolean accessor"?
> >
>
> The latter. I would expect that of_property_present() is used for
> properties which usually have a value, while of_property_read_bool()
> is used for pure bool values which can be present or not but must not
> have a value. I think a "bool" in terms of DT is simply a present or
> not-present property without any value?
>
> For example consider
>
> regulator-min-microvolts = <4200000000>;
> regulator-always-on;
>
> Then I would expect
>
> - of_property_present(..., "regulator-min-microvolts"), but
> - of_property_read_bool(..., "regulator-always-on")
>
> Does that make sense? :D
>

Certainly, of_property_read_duck() it is.

Thanks,
Bjorn