> -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khil...@deeprootsystems.com] > All of this discussion isn't relevant to the need for an in-kernel > SRAM allocator upstream. What is being discussed here is various ways > of using or not using it. IMHO, this discussion isn't relevant to > whether or not this allocator should go upstream. > > Even with this allocator upstream, the system integrator is free not > to use it and replace it with something else. > > Let's not bog down the merging of a feature just because some users > may not use it.
Peace. Speaking just for me (not necessarily TI), I'm ok with that. I like Rob/David's suggestion of adding request_mem_region()/release_mem_region() calls. CMEM added this recently too, so at least we'd get a nice error msg rather than have them stomp on each other. Assuming this SRAM allocator gets pushed then, can we talk through what happens when the audio driver (or any other driver!) requests this SRAM and either no SRAM is available, or this SRAM allocator isn't configured into the kernel? Do we lose the audio driver support? Does the audio driver need to plan ahead and have a mode where it doesn't use this SRAM? Chris_______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
