On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 08:02:20AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 09/13/2016 02:19 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 02:32:56PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > >> > >>arm64 may need to guarantee the caches are synced. Implement versions of > >>the kernel_force_cache API to allow this. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>--- > >>v3: Switch to calling cache operations directly instead of relying on > >>DMA mapping. > >>--- > >> arch/arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h | 8 ++++++++ > >> arch/arm64/mm/cache.S | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++---- > >> arch/arm64/mm/flush.c | 11 +++++++++++ > >> 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > >I'm really hesitant to expose these cache routines as an API solely to > >support a driver sitting in staging/. I appreciate that there's a chicken > >and egg problem here, but we *really* don't want people using these routines > >in preference to the DMA API, and I fear that we'll simply grow a bunch > >more users of these things if we promote it as an API like you're proposing. > > > >Can the code not be contained under staging/, as part of ion? > > > > I proposed that in V1 and it was suggested I make it a proper API > > http://www.mail-archive.com/driverdev-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg47654.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/driverdev-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg47672.html :/ then I guess we're in disagreement. If ion really needs this stuff (which I don't fully grok), perhaps we should be exposing something at a higher level from the architecture, so it really can't be used for anything other than ion. Will _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
