On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:05:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:46:04AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > The reason we always clear the buffer is that we can't be sure that a
> > driver will not map a buffer allocated by dma_alloc_coherent() into
> >
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:46:04AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:37:37AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > I forgot about the arm_dma_mmap fix here:
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/7/512
> >
> > So we either fix both cases by changing __get_dma_pgprot()
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:37:37AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> I forgot about the arm_dma_mmap fix here:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/7/512
>
> So we either fix both cases by changing __get_dma_pgprot() or just go
> for Mike's and your patches as above. It's up to Russell.
I'd prefer
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:14:43PM +0200, Lorenzo Nava wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:44:22PM +0200, Lorenzo Nava wrote:
> >> @@ -680,9 +694,14 @@ void *arm_dma_alloc(struct device *dev, size_t size,
> >> dma_addr_t *handle,
> >>
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:14:43PM +0200, Lorenzo Nava wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:44:22PM +0200, Lorenzo Nava wrote:
@@ -680,9 +694,14 @@ void *arm_dma_alloc(struct device *dev, size_t size,
dma_addr_t
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:46:04AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:37:37AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
I forgot about the arm_dma_mmap fix here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/7/512
So we either fix both cases by changing __get_dma_pgprot() or just go
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:05:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:46:04AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
The reason we always clear the buffer is that we can't be sure that a
driver will not map a buffer allocated by dma_alloc_coherent() into
userspace
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:37:37AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
I forgot about the arm_dma_mmap fix here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/7/512
So we either fix both cases by changing __get_dma_pgprot() or just go
for Mike's and your patches as above. It's up to Russell.
I'd prefer the
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:44:22PM +0200, Lorenzo Nava wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
>> index 7e7583d..8e7f402 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
>>
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:44:22PM +0200, Lorenzo Nava wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
index 7e7583d..8e7f402 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
+++
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:44:22PM +0200, Lorenzo Nava wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
> index 7e7583d..8e7f402 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
> @@ -645,15 +645,29 @@ static void *__dma_alloc(struct device
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:44:22PM +0200, Lorenzo Nava wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
index 7e7583d..8e7f402 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c
@@ -645,15 +645,29 @@ static void *__dma_alloc(struct device *dev,
This patch allows the use of CMA for DMA coherent memory allocation.
At the moment if the input parameter "is_coherent" is set to true
the allocation is not made using the CMA, which I think is not the
desired behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Nava
---
Changes in v2:
correct __arm_dma_free()
This patch allows the use of CMA for DMA coherent memory allocation.
At the moment if the input parameter is_coherent is set to true
the allocation is not made using the CMA, which I think is not the
desired behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Nava lorenx4@
---
Changes in v2:
correct
14 matches
Mail list logo
