Hi Laurent,
Thanks for looping me into this email chain, and apologies about not
responding earlier; it just got lost in the barrage of things.
On 1 June 2015 at 21:20, Laurent Pinchart
laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com wrote:
Hi Hans,
On Monday 01 June 2015 11:44:51 Hans Verkuil wrote:
One
On 06/01/2015 12:44 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Hans,
Thanks for the RFC.
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:44:51AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
One of the things that is really irritating is the fact that drivers that
use contig-dma sometimes want to support USERPTR, allowing applications to
pass
Hi Hans,
Thanks for the RFC.
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:44:51AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
One of the things that is really irritating is the fact that drivers that
use contig-dma sometimes want to support USERPTR, allowing applications to
pass pointers to the driver that point to physically
One of the things that is really irritating is the fact that drivers that
use contig-dma sometimes want to support USERPTR, allowing applications to
pass pointers to the driver that point to physically contiguous memory that
was somehow obtained, and that userspace has no way of knowing whether
Hi Hans,
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On 06/01/2015 12:44 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Hans,
Thanks for the RFC.
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:44:51AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
One of the things that is really irritating is the fact that drivers that
Hi Hans,
On Monday 01 June 2015 11:44:51 Hans Verkuil wrote:
One of the things that is really irritating is the fact that drivers that
use contig-dma sometimes want to support USERPTR, allowing applications to
pass pointers to the driver that point to physically contiguous memory that
was
On 06/01/2015 11:44 AM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
One of the things that is really irritating is the fact that drivers that
use contig-dma sometimes want to support USERPTR, allowing applications to
pass pointers to the driver that point to physically contiguous memory that
was somehow obtained, and
