Tegra DRM device tree bindings

[Hiroshi Doyu]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:08:10 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at avionic-design.de> wrote:

> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
> 
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 03:59:07PM +0300, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at avionic-design.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Old Signed by an unknown key
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:48:18PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > > On 06/26/2012 08:32 PM, Mark Zhang wrote:
> > > > >> On 06/26/2012 07:46 PM, Mark Zhang wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:55:13 +0200
> > > > >>>>> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at avionic-design.de> wrote:
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >>>> I'm not sure I understand how information about the carveout would be
> > > > >>>> obtained from the IOMMU API, though.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think that can be similar with current gart implementation. Define carveout as:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> carveout {
> > > > >>>         compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-carveout";
> > > > >>>         size = <0x10000000>;
> > > > >>> };
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Then create a file such like "tegra-carveout.c" to get these definitions and
> > > > >> register itself as platform device's iommu instance.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The carveout isn't a HW object, so it doesn't seem appropriate to define a DT
> > > > >> node to represent it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes. But I think it's better to export the size of carveout as a configurable item.
> > > > > So we need to define this somewhere. How about define carveout as a property of gart?
> > > > 
> > > > There already exists a way of preventing Linux from using certain chunks
> > > > of memory; the /memreserve/ syntax. From a brief look at the dtc source,
> > > > it looks like /memreserve/ entries can have labels, which implies that a
> > > > property in the GART node could refer to the /memreserve/ entry by
> > > > phandle in order to know what memory regions to use.
> > > 
> > > Wasn't the whole point of using a carveout supposed to be a replacement
> > > for the GART?
> > 
> > Mostly agree. IIUC, we use both carveout/gart allocated buffers in
> > android/tegra2.
> > 
> > >As such I'd think the carveout should rather be a property
> > > of the host1x device.
> > 
> > Rather than introducing a new property, how about using
> > "coherent_pool=??M" in the kernel command line if necessary? I think
> > that this carveout size depends on the system usage/load.
> 
> I was hoping that we could get away with using the CMA and perhaps
> initialize it based on device tree content. I agree that the carveout
> size depends on the use-case, but I still think it makes sense to
> specify it on a per-board basis.

DRM driver doesn't know if it uses CMA or not, because DRM only uses
DMA API. I think that "coherent_pool" can be used only when the amount
of contiguous memory is short in your system. Otherwise even unnecessary.

Could you explain a bit more why you want carveout size on per-board basis?