On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +phys_addr_t arm_memblock_steal(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align)
> +{
> + phys_addr_t phys;
> +
> + if (!arm_memblock_steal_permitted)
> + panic("arm_memblock_steal used in an unsafe manner\n");
> +
> + phys = memblock_alloc(size, align);
> + memblock_free(phys, size);
> + memblock_remove(phys, size);
> +
> + return phys;
> +}
Excellent! I think I suggested a function like that at some point.
But I wonder about the 'align' argument. I think most people just
copy-pasted SZ_1M, although I think originally you suggested SZ_2M,
maybe it would make sense to align 'align' to SZ_1M, or set SZ_1M if
it's 0 for convenience.
Also, what about people that need memblock_alloc_base? AFAIK OMAP 3
secure ram needs to be below certain area (I wonder why the current
code is not handling that).
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
