Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:30:35 +0100 (BST)
From:   "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
To:     Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
cc:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= <zajec5@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
        Keguang Zhang <keguang.zhang@gmail.com>,
        John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: replace add_memory_region with memblock
In-Reply-To: <20201008152006.4khkbzsxqmmz76rw@mobilestation>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.2010081628100.866917@eddie.linux-mips.org>
References: <20201008084357.42780-1-tsbogend@alpha.franken.de> <20201008152006.4khkbzsxqmmz76rw@mobilestation>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Serge Semin wrote:

> At least I don't see a decent reason to preserve them. The memory registration
> method does nearly the same sanity checks. The memory reservation function
> defers a bit in adding the being reserved memory first. That seems redundant,
> since the reserved memory won't be available for the system anyway. Do I miss
> something?

 At the very least it serves informational purposes as it shows up in 
/proc/iomem.

  Maciej