On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:04:07PM +0100, Tomasz Fujak wrote: >> In other words, should we take your response as yet another NAK? >> Or would you try harder and at least point us to some direction that >> would not doom the effort from the very beginning. > > What the fsck do you think I've been doing? ÂThis is NOT THE FIRST time > I've raised this issue. ÂI gave up raising it after the first couple > of attempts because I wasn't being listened to. > > You say about _me_ not being very helpful. ÂHow about the CMA proponents > start taking the issue I've raised seriously, and try to work out how > to solve it? ÂAnd how about blaming them for the months of wasted time > on this issue _because_ _they_ have chosen to ignore it? I've also raised the issue for ARM. However, I don't see what is the big problem. A generic solution (that I think I already proposed) would be to reserve a chunk of memory for the CMA that can be removed from the normally mapped kernel memory through memblock at boot time. The size of this memory region would be configurable through kconfig. Then, the CMA would have a "dma" flag or something, and take chunks out of it until there's no more, and then return errors. That would work for ARM. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
