On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 10:06 -0500, Rob Clark wrote: > >> > Well, as I said, it's not an issue for me and from my side it can be >> > improved later. >> >> yeah, when CMA is actually merged, there are a few other things I'd >> like to do to, incl converting omapfb over to use CMA and remove >> omap_vram.. but I guess those will be other patches. > > Right, I just realized CMA is not in the kernel, nor does it seem to be > in the linux-next. Is there a reason why you want it already merged? > Wouldn't it be easier to get it in only when it can actually be used. > Especially if there's room for improvement. Some folks are already pulling CMA into product kernels for various reasons.. keeping this w/ #ifdef CONFIG_CMA guards seemed like it would make their life a bit easier. But if people feel strongly about it, I can strip that out. BR, -R > Tomi > > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
