[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180420124625.GA31078@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:46:25 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
"moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
<linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
"open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
<linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
amd-gfx list <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] dma-buf: add peer2peer flag
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:44:01PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > What we need is an sg_alloc_table_from_resources(dev, resources,
> > > num_resources) which does the handling common to all drivers.
> > A structure that contains
> >
> > {page,offset,len} + {dma_addr+dma_len}
> >
> > is not a good container for storing
> >
> > {virt addr, dma_addr, len}
> >
> > no matter what interface you build arond it.
>
> Why not? I mean at least for my use case we actually don't need the virtual
> address.
If you don't need the virtual address you need scatterlist even list.
> What we need is {dma_addr+dma_len} in a consistent interface which can come
> from both {page,offset,len} as well as {resource, len}.
Ok.
> What I actually don't need is separate handling for system memory and
> resources, but that would we get exactly when we don't use sg_table.
At the very lowest level they will need to be handled differently for
many architectures, the questions is at what point we'll do the
branching out.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists