On 08/03/2016 05:22 PM, Chin Liang See wrote: Hi,
[...] >>> It's the fat driver which is utilizing the malloc. >> >> So fat is allocating stuff without freeing it ? I wonder if we should >> either fix fat or use full malloc in SPL on A10 . I am not really >> fond >> of adding more stuff into simple malloc (to keep it small and >> simple). > > Actually fat driver is good where it invoke malloc and free during the > operation. Just that with existing malloc, there is no free > implementation and memory keep "push" every time malloc invoked. And I agree with Simon that we should look into the FAT driver and fix it. Is that not possible ? >>>> Your design breaks in the scenario where someone does big malloc >>>> followed by two small mallocs if I understand it correctly. This >>>> doesn't scale and is a hack. >>>> >>> >>> Actually the proposed free is a simple implementation which acts as >>> stack push and pop with depth of 2. This is to enhance existing >>> implementation which don't handle the pop. This get worst >>> especially >>> dealing with fat driver. >> >> Well, how does it handle my example? It doesn't and it fails to help >> in >> such case, right ? > > I was thinking what is the correct depth while trying to keep things > simple. From the FAT access testing with SD and eMMC, depth of 2 works > well by cutting lot of memory consumption by simple malloc > implementation. Any thoughts whether should have more flexibility? You still didn't answer my question -- how will this handle my example usecase ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot