Deprecating reserve-map in favor of properties

Grant Likely grant.likely at
Fri Nov 2 01:21:23 EST 2012

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh at> wrote:
> Hi folks !
> The reserve map is, imho, my biggest mistake when coming up with the FDT
> format.
> The main problem is that it doesn't survive the transition via a real
> Open Firmware interface. There is no practical way to indicate reserved
> regions of memory accross in that case, unless you have an OS that is
> nice enough to try to keep OF alive and accomodate its advertised
> "available" properties, but that's typically not the case of Linux on
> ppc.
> So I would like to propose that we add a new "better" way to convey
> reserved memory information, via properties in the tree.
> I originally though of having these in the "memory" nodes themselves but
> this can be tricky on machines that have multiple nodes (ie, NUMA
> generally means a memory node per NUMA node) since the reserved regions
> can spawn accross nodes and I don't want to complicate FW life too much
> by requiring breaking them up in that case.
> So what about something at the root of the tree:
> reserved-ranges: An array of ranges of reserved memory
> reserved-names: A list of zero terminated strings, one for each entry in
> the reserved-ranges array, providing optional "names" for the reserved
> ranges.

I think this makes sense. Cyril and I are just talking about what he
needs. He wants to set aside per-device reserved regions and would
like to have the ability to reference a particular reserved region
from a device node, probably with a phandle. I like the look of the
reserved-{ranges,names} properties in the root, but I see the argument
that it isn't very flexible. What about something like this:

reserved-memory {
        reserved at 0x10000000 { reg = <0x10000000 0x08000000>; };
        reserved at 0x01000000 { reg = <0x01000000 0x00200000>; };

The node name of the child nodes could be different of course.

> The idea here is that we could have well defined names (using a similar
> prefix we use for properties) such as linux,initrd, which indicates
> clearly to the kernel that the only reason that range is reserved is
> because it contains an initrd (ie, it can be freed once that's been
> extracted).
> It would also be generally handy in case a reserved area is meant to be
> used by a specific driver, such as an in-memory framebuffer
> pre-initialized by the firmware. The generic memory management code
> doesn't need to know, but later on, the gfx driver can pick it up easily
> provided the name is part of the binding for that device.

Right, that would work also even though I prefer phandle references in
general. Is it conceivable that additional data would want to be
attached to a particular reserved region?


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list