> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 02:26:44AM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> After Catalin's response to clarify, if we still end up not treating >> secure domain as a "DMA device", then what's the alternative? Can we get >> an explicit "cache invalidate API" that's outside of the DMA APIs? Or a >> general uncached pages alloc/free APIs? > > The answer _always_ is that if the existing APIs don't give you want > you need, then either the APIs need extending or a new API needs to > be created. I will wait to hear Catalin's clarification before I proceed further with this point. > > In any case, have you looked at the latest set of SCM patches? They > don't make use of DMA coherent memory anymore, so the problem would > seem to be resolved. > Yes, I saw them and even pointed out a few issues during internal-prelim review. The new patches get around it with what we hope is a temporary solution -- implement cache invalidate in assembly and call it over a kmalloc'ed and page aligned memory. -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-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
