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@xxxxxxxx Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
