On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 09:57:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom Rini, > > In message <20131004170203.GL15917@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > > I really don't like this. We're now allocating for example 256KiB on > > the stack, rather than malloc. I posted a patch recently to convert the > > non-redundant case to malloc instead for this reason. I believe the > > answer is we need to be using memalign here, like > > common/bouncebuf.c::bounce_buffer_start does. Can you do this? If not, > > can you test a patch? Thanks. > > What exactly don't you like in using the stack for temporary data > buffers? That's what it has been invented for. Using malloc() is > only useful when the allocated buffers neet to be kept across file > scope, which appears not to be the case here. > > For file scope buffers, usign the satck is the most efficient and > preferred approach - it's fast and results in minimal (virtually no) > code. > > Why do you hesitate to use the stack?
Mainly to allow us to work in restricted stack areas like SPL where we simply may not have that much space available. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
