Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:22:02 -0800 | From | Saravana Kannan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm: dma-mapping: move consistent_init to early_initcall |
| |
On 12/17/10 15:14, Saravana Kannan wrote: > Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> Russell, >>> >>> I agree with your point about using an API for purpose and not property. >>> But I read Catalin's proposal as, let's treat secure domain as another >>> DMA >>> "device". If we make a conscious agreement to do that, then using the >>> DMA >>> API for secure domain would be "using it for its purpose" and we will >>> make >>> an effort to not break it with future updates. Of course, if we don't >>> agree on that proposal, then we can't use the DMA API for secure domain >>> stuff. >> >> If there is no better proposal, I'm for such extension to the DMA API. >> From the kernel perspecitve, the secure side is just another entity >> that accesses the RAM directly. It's not a physically separate device >> indeed but from a direct memory access perspective it can be treated >> as any other device. >> >> In the DMA API we can fall back to the non-coherent ops when a NULL >> struct device is passed. I assume in your code you already pass a NULL >> device to dma_alloc_coherent(). > > Russell, > > Would the extension of the DMA API as described above be acceptable to > you? If not, can you please suggest an alternative that's acceptable to > you?
Ping...
-Saravana
-- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
| |