[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170310103112.GA15945@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:31:13 +0000
From: Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@....com>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...gle.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Ion cleanup in preparation for moving out of
staging
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:38:49AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>On 03/09/2017 02:00 AM, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> For me those patches are going in the right direction.
>>
>> I still have few questions:
>> - since alignment management has been remove from ion-core, should it
>> be also removed from ioctl structure ?
>
>Yes, I think I'm going to go with the suggestion to fixup the ABI
>so we don't need the compat layer and as part of that I'm also
>dropping the align argument.
>
Is the only motivation for removing the alignment parameter that
no-one got around to using it for something useful yet?
The original comment was true - different devices do have different
alignment requirements.
Better alignment can help SMMUs use larger blocks when mapping,
reducing TLB pressure and the chance of a page table walk causing
display underruns.
-Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists