[meta-ti] [RFC 0/2] Proposal for enabling CMEM

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 02:16:22PM -0400, Jacob Stiffler wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/14/2015 6:21 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:11:10AM -0400, Jacob Stiffler wrote:
> >>
> >>On 4/23/2015 4:15 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 07:42:09AM -0400, Jacob Stiffler wrote:
> >>>>This is a proposal for adding a CMEM region in the device tree.
> >>>>
> >>>>I wanted to get comments on the following:
> >>>>
> >>>>* implementation of using an inc file to enable this.
> >>>>* Whether the actual configuration belongs in the kernel recipe, or if
> >>>>   this is something that should be handled at the distro or branding
> >>>>   level. (RFC sets the configuration in kernel recipe).
> >>>>     - I have verified that this configuration may also be set in the
> >>>>        branding file using, for example,
> >>>>
> >>>>          CMEM_BASE_pn-linux-ti-staging_omap-a15 = "a0000000"
> >>>>          CMEM_SIZE_pn-linux-ti-staging_omap-a15 = "20000000"
> >>>Hmm, on one hand I don't like this change being so invasive. But on the other
> >>>hand, I'm not sure there's a better cleaner way to do a dts injection like
> >>>that. Let me think about it...
> >>Any thoughts on this yet?
> >Jake,
> >
> >After discussing this matter internally, since cmem is something that LCPD
> >currently doesn't support being an out-of-tree module and so on, I can accept
> >the patchset, but it will be disabled by default and not tested by us. All the
> >testing will be on you to make sure it's not broken by future changes in the
> >kernel. Will that be sufficient?
> >
> This should be fine, but to be clear, is it OK to have the kernel
> recipe include the cmem include file? And, with CMEM being disabled
> by default for core sdk builds, would the CMEM configuration go into
> the branding file?

Jake,

The point is to not mangle standard dts files with CMEM related setup in 
CoreSDK. The way your patch works, as long as CMEM_BASE is not set, it won't 
do that. I'm fine with recipe having that logic via cmem.inc. You are welcome 
to enable it in your SDK config/branding, yes.

In other words, patch #1 can go in w/o changes and patch #2 should rather go 
into your branding config file.

-- 
Denys