[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:51:37 +0200
From: John Einar Reitan <john.reitan@...s.arm.com>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Cc Ma <cc.ma@...iatek.com>,
Joakim Bech <joakim.bech@...aro.org>,
Burt Lien <burt.lien@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Linaro MM SIG Mailman List <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/3] Secure Memory Allocation Framework
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:42:17AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> probably should keep the discussion on github (USAGE.md was updated a
> bit more and merged into https://github.com/cubanismo/allocator so
> look there for the latest)..
>
> but briefly:
>
> 1) my expectation is if the user is implementing some use-case, it
> knows what devices and APIs are involved, otherwise it wouldn't be
> able to pass a buffer to that device/API..
As I described at Linaro Connect late-connected devices could cause new
constrains to appear. I.e. some (additonal) HDMI connection or WiFi Display etc.
Including all the might-happen devices might lead to unoptimal buffers
just to be able to handle some rarely-happen events.
I guess the easy resolve here is for the user to do a reallocation with
the new constraints added and replace the buffer(s) in question, but
with a slight lag in enabling the new device.
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists