Re: [PATCH] arm: dma-mapping: move consistent_init to early_initcall

[Saravana Kannan]

On 12/17/10 15:14, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > Russell,
> > >
> > > I agree with your point about using an API for purpose and not property.
> > > But I read Catalin's proposal as, let's treat secure domain as another
> > > DMA
> > > "device". If we make a conscious agreement to do that, then using the
> > > DMA
> > > API for secure domain would be "using it for its purpose" and we will
> > > make
> > > an effort to not break it with future updates. Of course, if we don't
> > > agree on that proposal, then we can't use the DMA API for secure domain
> > > stuff.
> >
> > If there is no better proposal, I'm for such extension to the DMA API.
> >  From the kernel perspecitve, the secure side is just another entity
> > that accesses the RAM directly. It's not a physically separate device
> > indeed but from a direct memory access perspective it can be treated
> > as any other device.
> >
> > In the DMA API we can fall back to the non-coherent ops when a NULL
> > struct device is passed. I assume in your code you already pass a NULL
> > device to dma_alloc_coherent().
>
> Russell,
>
> Would the extension of the DMA API as described above be acceptable to
> you? If not, can you please suggest an alternative that's acceptable to
> you?

Ping...

-Saravana

--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/