On Thursday 11 June 2009, Tivy, Robert wrote: > > That kind of logic is easy to wrap in utility functions. > > (If it were wrapped, would non-DSP code really need CMEM?) > > ... the requirement for phys contig buffers is mostly for HW > accelerators that address memory w/o the benefit of an MMU > or without chaining capability.
(You mean "... *and* without chaining" yes? If either tech is available, there is no "hard" requirement.) For completeness: which accelerators are those? I expect it might be quite painful to update DSP code to change assumptions like "physically contiguous buffers", but on the flip side of things it seems like such changes should probably be assumed for all mainstream Linux code that's got to take buffers from userspace. > Having one contig buf for EDMA also makes things simpler to > handle, but isn't necessary. _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
