[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120110091806.GC3979@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:18:06 +0100
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
Cc: "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@...il.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Future TTM DMA direction
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 12:01:28PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Thanks for your input. I think this is mostly orthogonal to dma_buf, and
> really a way to adapt TTM to be DMA-api aware. That's currently done
> within the TTM backends. CMA was mearly included as an example that
> might not be relevant.
>
> I haven't followed dma_buf that closely lately, but if it's growing
> from being just
> a way to share buffer objects between devices to something providing
> also low-level
> allocators with fragmentation prevention, there's definitely an overlap.
> However, on the dma_buf meeting in Budapest there seemed to be
> little or no interest
> in robust buffer allocation / fragmentation prevention although I
> remember bringing
> it up to the point where I felt annoying :).
Well, I've shot at you quite a bit too, and I still think it's too much
for the first few iterations. But I also think we will need a cleverer
dma subsystem sooner or later (even if it's just around dma_buf) so that's
why I've dragged your rfc out of the drm corner ;-)
Cheers, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@...ll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
--
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