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? -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
