Hello, On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 9:14 AM Hans Verkuil wrote: > We had a discussion yesterday regarding ways in which linaro can assist > V4L2 development. One topic was that of sorting out memory providers like > GEM and HWMEM. > > Today I learned of yet another one: UMP from ARM. > > http://blogs.arm.com/multimedia/249-making-the-mali-gpu-device-driver-open- > source/page__cid__133__show__newcomment/ I really wonder what's the opinion of ARM Linux maintainer on this memory allocator. Russell - could you comment on it? Is this a preferred memory provider/allocator on ARM Linux platform? What's about still to-be-resolved issues with mapping memory regions for DMA transfers and different cache settings for each mapping? > This is getting out of hand. I think that organizing a meeting to solve this > mess should be on the top of the list. Companies keep on solving the same > problem time and again and since none of it enters the mainline kernel any > driver using it is also impossible to upstream. > > All these memory-related modules have the same purpose: make it possible to > allocate/reserve large amounts of memory and share it between different > subsystems (primarily framebuffer, GPU and V4L). > > It really shouldn't be that hard to get everyone involved together and settle > on a single solution (either based on an existing proposal or create a 'the > best of' vendor-neutral solution). > > I am currently aware of the following solutions floating around the net > that all solve different parts of the problem: > > In the kernel: GEM and TTM. > Out-of-tree: HWMEM, UMP, CMA, VCM, CMEM, PMEM. > > I'm sure that last list is incomplete. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski Samsung Poland R&D Center -- 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
