On 03/03/2017 08:25 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Laura, > > Thank you for the patches. > > On Thursday 02 Mar 2017 13:44:32 Laura Abbott wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's >> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well. >> This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be >> moved out of staging. >> >> This includes the following: >> - Some general clean up and removal of features that never got a lot of use >> as far as I can tell. >> - Fixing up the caching. This is the series I proposed back in December[2] >> but never heard any feedback on. It will certainly break existing >> applications that rely on the implicit caching. I'd rather make an effort >> to move to a model that isn't going directly against the establishement >> though. >> - Fixing up the platform support. The devicetree approach was never well >> recieved by DT maintainers. The proposal here is to think of Ion less as >> specifying requirements and more of a framework for exposing memory to >> userspace. > > That's where most of my concerns with ion are. I still strongly believe that > the heap-based approach is inherently flawed, as it would need to be > configured for each device according to product-specific use cases. That's not > something that could be easily shipped with a generic distribution. We should > replace that with a constraint-based system. > I don't think of constraints and heaps as being mutually exclusive. Some general heaps (e.g. system heaps) can be available always. Others might just be exposed if there is a particular memory region available. The constraint solving is responsible for querying and figuring out what's the best choice. Thanks, Laura
