[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201104281428.56780.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:28:56 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"'Benjamin Herrenschmidt'" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [RFC] ARM DMA mapping TODO, v1
On Thursday 28 April 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> What I'd suggest is that dma_alloc_noncoherent() should be architecture
> independent, and should call into whatever iommu support the device has
> to setup an approprite iommu mapping. IOW, I don't see any need for
> every architecture to provide its own dma_alloc_noncoherent() allocation
> function - or indeed every iommu implementation to deal with the
> allocation issues either.
Almost all architectures today define dma_alloc_noncoherent to
dma_alloc_coherent, which is totally fine on architectures
where cacheable coherent mappings are the default or where
we don't need to flush individual cache lines for dma_sync_*.
The problem with backing either of the two with alloc_pages or
alloc_pages_exact is that you cannot do large allocation when
physical memory is fragmented, even if you have an IOMMU.
IMHO the allocation for both dma_alloc_coherent and
dma_alloc_noncoherent should therefore depend on whether you
have an IOMMU. If you do, you can easily allocate megabytes,
e.g. for use as a frame buffer.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists