Hi Laura, On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:03:52PM +0100, Laura Abbott wrote: > Neither CMA nor noncoherent allocations support atomic allocations. > Add a dedicated atomic pool to support this. > > Change-Id: I46c8fdffe5e0687403d42b37643137c8cf344259 > Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lau...@codeaurora.org> > --- > > v2: Various bug fixes pointed out by David and Ritesh (CMA dependency, > swapping > coherent, noncoherent). I'm still not sure how to address the devicetree > suggestion by Will [1][2]. I added the devicetree mailing list this time > around > to get more input on this. > > [1] > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-April/249180.html > [2] > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-April/249528.html
Perhaps that can be done later then, since from what you're saying, we need the command-line option either way? Have you looked at how this fits in with the iommu-helper work from Ritesh? We could put the parameter parsing in there too. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
