[RFC][PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: dma-buf: heaps: Describe CMA regions to be added to dmabuf heaps interface.

[John Stultz]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 4:32 PM Rob Herring <rob.e.herring at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 5:51 PM John Stultz <john.stultz at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > This binding specifies which CMA regions should be added to the
> > dmabuf heaps interface.
>
> Is this an ION DT binding in disguise? I thought I killed that. ;)

Maybe? I may not have been paying attention back then.  :)

> > +Example:
> > +This example has a camera CMA node in reserved memory, which is then
> > +referenced by the dmabuf-heap-cma node.
> > +
> > +
> > +       reserved-memory {
> > +               #address-cells = <2>;
> > +               #size-cells = <2>;
> > +               ranges;
> > +               ...
> > +               cma_camera: cma-camera {
> > +                       compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
> > +                       reg = <0x0 0x24C00000 0x0 0x4000000>;
> > +                       reusable;
> > +               };
> > +               ...
> > +       };
> > +
> > +       cma_heap {
> > +               compatible = "dmabuf-heap-cma";
> > +               memory-region = <&cma_camera>;
>
> Why the indirection here? Can't you just add a flag property to
> reserved-memory nodes like we do to flag CMA nodes?

Happy to try. Do you mean like with the "reuasable" tag?  Or more like
the "linux,cma-default" tag?

Do you have a preference for the flag name here?

> As I suspected, it's because in patch 2 you're just abusing DT to
> instantiate platform devices. We already support binding drivers to
> reserved-memory nodes directly.

Sorry, one of those "when all you know how to do is hammer, everything
looks like a nail" issues.
Is there a specific example for binding drivers to reserved-memory
nodes I can try to follow?

Appreciate the review and feedback!

thanks
-john